Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

STANDING ORDERS (PRIVATE BUSINESS)

Ordered,
That the Amendments to the Standing Orders relating to Private Business set out in the Schedule be made.

Standing Order 27
Line 73, at end, insert Transport and the Regions'.

Standing Order 27A
Line 24, leave out 'three' and insert 'four'.
Line 25, after 'Environment', insert Transport and the Regions'.

Standing Order 29
Line 8, leave out 'Transport' and insert 'the Environment, Transport and the Regions'.

Standing Order 30
Line 6, leave out 'Energy' and insert 'Trade and Industry'.

Standing Order 30A
Line 5, after 'Environment', insert Transport and the Regions'.

Standing Order 31
Line 6, leave out 'Transport' and insert 'the Environment, Transport and the Regions'.

Standing Order 32
Line 13, leave out 'National Rivers Authority' and insert 'Environment Agency'.

Standing Order 33
Line 10, leave out 'National Rivers Authority' and insert 'Environment Agency'.

Standing Order 34
Line 10, leave out 'Transport' and insert 'the Environment, Transport and the Regions'.

Standing Order 37
Line 10, at end, insert Transport and the Regions'.
Line 17, at end, insert Transport and the Regions'.

Standing Order 39
Line 3, after 'bill', insert 'four at the Department of Environment, Transport and the Regions'.
Line 3, leave out 'at the Department of the Environment and'.
Line 10, leave out 'of National Heritage' and insert 'for Culture, Media and Sport'.
Line 10. leave out 'the Department of Transport'.
Line 36, leave out 'Great George Street' and insert 'Whitehall'.

Standing Order 42
Line 7, leave out 'National Rivers Authority' and insert 'Environment Agency'.

Standing Order 43
Line 8, leave out 'National Rivers Authority' and insert 'Environment Agency'.

Standing Order 45
Line 20, leave out 'Transport' and insert 'the Environment, Transport and the Regions'.

Standing Order 47
Line 11, after 'Environment', insert Transport and the Regions'.

Standing Order 154
Line 12, leave out 'Transport' and insert 'the Environment, Transport and the Regions'.
Line 27, leave out 'Transport' and insert 'the Environment, Transport and the Regions'.—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]

Oral Answers to Questions — EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

The Secretary of State was asked—

Voluntary Work

Ms Julie Morgan: What plans he has to encourage and support voluntary work in the community. [14320]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mr. Alan Howarth): We believe strongly in the value of voluntary work. For this reason, we have recently launched a consultation document on millennium volunteers, and we have been working closely with a wide range of voluntary groups to encourage their participation in the new deal for young unemployed people.

Ms Morgan: I thank my hon. Friend for his reply, which I am sure will be welcomed by hon. Members on both sides of the House. How does he propose to link the opportunities to be made available under the new deal and the millennium project with the social exclusion unit and the many young people who have become alienated and disaffected over the past 18 years?

Mr. Howarth: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the way in which she put her question. There is an enormous problem with the exclusion of young people who have become disaffected and alienated from much of the mainstream of our society. We believe strongly in voluntary work as the most valuable means of strengthening the bonds of our society and creating a society in which all can contribute and all are valued. The voluntary sector option of the new deal and millennium volunteers are distinct programmes, as my hon. Friend knows. Both of them will be of considerable interest to others in the Government who, through the work of the social exclusion unit, will be monitoring and promoting the ways in which we address the problem.

Higher Education Funding

Barbara Follett: If he will make a statement on his proposals to increase funding for higher education. [14321]

The Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mr. David Blunkett): In my statement in September, I outlined how we had identified £165 million for investment in opening up access to higher education, doubling the access funding and providing money to sustain the universities and to ensure that young people have the opportunity of taking up higher education in years to come. Yesterday, I was able to make a similar statement relating to further education.

Barbara Follett: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his reply and for the funds that he announced for the further education sector yesterday. Does he agree that those funds will send an important signal to the students

and staff of further education colleges across the country that their work is valuable—as valuable as that of the universities?

Mr. Blunkett: I agree with my hon. Friend. The £83 million that we have identified for direct investment, and the minimum contribution of at least £100 million from the new deal for the under-25s—which will go into further education through the full-time and part-time options for education and training—will make an enormous difference in opening up potential for more than 70,000 additional students next year. The funds will help to protect the colleges, as we did the universities, from the draconian cuts imposed by the previous Government, who paid lip service to expansion while undermining the quality and standard of education.

Mrs. May: The Secretary of State will be aware of the various comments made by spokesmen for Scottish universities on the likely impact of the decision by the Government that English, Northern Ireland and Welsh students will have to pay the full £4,000 tuition fees, while students from other European member states and Scotland will not. Is he aware that in last week's debate on higher education funding, the Minister for Education and Industry, Scottish Office dismissed the statements that had been made by the Scottish universities on the issue? Who is presenting the correct picture—the Minister or the universities?

Mr. Blunkett: We are of course talking about the £1,000 towards the tuition fee for the final and fourth year for those in the higher income bracket. There is no evidence yet on what the impact might be on English students, because applications have not yet closed in Scotland. One thing is certain: the more fear that is put in students' minds about what they can expect to find and when, the more likely it is that they will not apply. I am confident, as are my right hon. and hon. Friends in Scotland, that the quality of education at universities in Scotland is such that those who are privileged enough to have earnings that will oblige them to pay the full £1,000 fee will feel that it is worth the investment.

Mrs. Anne Campbell: I know that further education colleges in my constituency will warmly welcome the announcement made by my right hon. Friend yesterday. Does he agree that it is an important part of the package to convince young people that further and higher education are worthwhile investments, and that those who take a degree are far more likely to have higher earnings, certainly by their mid-30s and for the rest of their lives, than non-graduates of the same ability?

Mr. Blunkett: I agree entirely. It is statistically proven that what my hon. Friend says is correct. We announced yesterday an expansion for further education, and the fact that adult students in further education already contribute towards their fees and feel that it is worth while to do so will be an encouragement to those who go on to higher education: they will see that the higher return on the investment made will be a tremendous financial as well as an educational and employment gain.

Mr. Beggs: The Secretary of State's announcement of additional funding for further and higher education is


welcomed in all regions of the United Kingdom, but we in Northern Ireland are concerned at speculation about the creation of an additional higher education centre in west Belfast, in which £65 million of public money could be invested. Will he consult the Minister responsible for education in Northern Ireland, the hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington), and advise him that it is our view that investment in that project is not justified and that moneys available would be better spent on the many existing further and higher education campuses in Northern Ireland?

Mr. Blunkett: I shall be happy to consult my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and her colleagues about how to provide greater access to education for all members of the community in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Jim Marshall: I recognise the problem that my right hon. Friend faces in financing higher and further education, but does he not agree that if the Government's proposals on student funding lead to a dramatic fall in student numbers, that will create an even greater crisis in the sector's finances next year? How does he intend to cope with that potential crisis?

Mr. Blunkett: If there is a drop in the number of students, it will be a tragedy for those who have been discouraged from taking up their places by misleading and scurrilous propaganda: propaganda that suggests that the means-tested family contribution is to rise, when it is not; scurrilous misinformation that suggests to poorer students that they will have to find the £1,000 fee, when they will not; and scurrilous misinformation that deceives them into thinking that the grant is to disappear in one year, when in fact it is being phased out.
There will not be a financial crisis if there is a drop in the number of students, because we are funding those students through the fee process, funding the residual grant and funding the loan. The tragedy would be if those young and mature students were denied the opportunity of better employment prospects and higher earnings from their investment in their own education.

Mr. Dafis: Will the Secretary of State explain in as much detail as possible the connection between the decision to require students to contribute towards their fee, and the additional resources for higher education? Does he intend to ensure that the additional resources from the fee are ring-fenced for higher education, and how permanent will that connection be?

Mr. Blunkett: By 2005–06, on current accounting procedures, an additional £800 million would be available for the further and higher education sector from the introduction of our proposals. That sum would rise substantially under alternative resource accounting processes. That money will be available for lifelong learning. I have made it clear here and in the Select Committee that that is why we are introducing the scheme. We believe that it is an important investment which will open access to the tens of thousands of students who would otherwise be denied it.

Ms Hodge: May I, too, congratulate the Secretary of State on his ingenuity and skill in finding an additional

£83 million to invest in further education? Does he agree that the needs of the 2.6 million students in further education are as important as the needs of the 1.8 million students in higher education? Does he further agree that the false divide in the tertiary sector between further and higher does nothing to help the opportunities for all our young people to fulfil their potential?

Mr. Blunkett: I am grateful to my hon. Friend and I entirely agree. Conservative Members might stop laughing if they realised that in our sixth months in office, my Department has identified within our existing resources, which we inherited, more than £250 million for further and higher education. That is £250 million that the Conservatives failed to identify and did not know was available. Their handling of their responsibilities was grossly incompetent.

Mr. Dorrell: Can the Secretary of State confirm that the effect of his proposals is to raise the cost of a three-year degree course outside London for a typical middle-class student by £3,000, and that the cost of the same degree to a student from a low-income background will rise as a result of his proposals by £5,265? Why are the Government abolishing the means-tested maintenance grant when Dearing recommended that it should be sustained and when the effect of their policy is to deliver such discrimination against low-income students?

Mr. Blunkett: We did not accept the Dearing proposition that the imposition of a contribution to fees should not be means tested; in other words, that all students should be expected to find the contribution towards fees. A party that cut the maintenance grant year after year, introduced the current unfair mortgage-type loan scheme, resisted our requests for an income-related scheme, stood on an election platform that did not say whether it favoured maintaining the grant or introducing fees, and has done a double somersault on its previous policies has no right to question us on this issue.

Training and Enterprise Councils

Mr. Dawson: What steps the Government are taking to prevent fraud against training and enterprise councils. [14322]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Dr. Kim Howells): The principal responsibility lies with the training and enterprise councils themselves. The Department operates a number of controls to check against uncertain, incorrect or improper payments. My hon. Friend may be assured that we operate those controls with energy and determination.

Mr. Dawson: Does my hon. Friend agree that national vocational qualifications form the cornerstone of essential policies such as welfare to work, the new deal and lifelong learning and that those are the policies that will appeal to and give hope and opportunities to so many people denied chances under the previous Government? Will he assure me that he will look into recent fraud cases relating to training providers offering NVQs, and ensure that people


who have had qualifications withdrawn are given the opportunity to retake tests and gain the appropriate qualifications?

Dr. Howells: I assure my hon. Friend that we will do just that. National vocational qualifications are a tremendous boon to our education system. I believe in them; they have opened up possibilities for learning and entering higher education for a great many people. I have seen it wherever I have gone. Yesterday in a steel plant, I saw a rediscovered joy in learning. The men and women working there were involved in national vocational qualifications and were extremely keen to go on learning. We must ensure that there is no fraud in the system and that no nods arid winks are operated by any agency that receives money from the Government. The question of national vocational qualifications must remain completely unbesmirched by backhanders or sleaze.

Higher Education (Enrolment)

Mr. Spring: By how much he estimates that enrolment in 1998 in higher education will change, relative to the average levels of the previous three years. [14323]

Dr. Howells: It is too early to estimate higher education enrolment levels in 1998. Applicant numbers are currently slightly down compared with last year.

Mr. Spring: Does the Minister not recognise that the Government's plans will have an impact on young people, particularly from low-income families? Given the Prime Minister's famous words, "Education, education, education," will the Minister take this opportunity now to apologise for the Government's attack on equal access to higher education?

Dr. Howells: I do not know the hon. Gentleman's educational background, but let me tell him this: when I discovered the percentages of young people from different socio-economic groups who go to university and receive higher education—

Mr. Ian Bruce: How does scrapping grants for the poorest students help them?

Dr. Howells: If the hon. Gentleman will wrap up for a moment, I shall answer the main question. Four out of five young people from families of senior managers and professionals go on to university, whereas fewer than one in 10 from unskilled families go to university. We are going to do something about that.

Ms Beverley Hughes: Does my hon. Friend agree that our starting point on this issue is that we recognise that the current system of student support patently does not work? It is also unfair, as it requires part-time and mature students to pay fees. Does he also agree that the Government's proposals—provided that students from low-income families are protected, as they will be—are the best means of ensuring fairer access to, and better funding for, higher education?

Dr. Howells: I agree absolutely with my hon. Friend. We shall ensure that every student, regardless of background, has access to sufficient money now to get

him or her through university degrees. We shall ensure that, when it comes to paying that money back, students will be able to afford to do so. That does not happen now. We shall institute a much better system that will allow it to happen.

Unemployment (Rural Areas)

Mr. David Heath: What proportion of the young unemployed in rural areas cite lack of available transport as a barrier to employment opportunities. [14324]

The Minister for Employment, Welfare to Work and Disability Rights (Mr. Andrew Smith): As I expect the hon. Gentleman is aware, a recent survey by the Somerset employment service showed that some 40 per cent. of unemployed young people reported transport to be just such a problem.

Mr. Heath: I am grateful to the Minister for his reply. When he evaluates the new deal pilot areas, will he pay particular attention to the pilot scheme in Cornwall? Will he look at the barriers to young people in rural areas, and the barriers that prevent small businesses in rural areas from providing opportunities? Will he ensure that the new deal is a genuine new deal for young people in Somerset villages just as much as it is for young people in cities?

Mr. Smith: Yes, indeed. I shall visit Cornwall on 19 December precisely to examine how the pathfinder proposals are working out there. A number of transport companies already offer discounts for young unemployed people, and those will be part of the new deal. Sheffield supertram operates a reduced fare, and National Express has announced a 50 per cent. discount for those on the new deal and free travel for unemployed people going to interviews. We want to turn that into a national programme and support initiatives with the Rural Development Commission for other ways to include transport in rural areas, such as the project in which the hon. Gentleman was involved in his constituency.

Dr. George Turner: Does my right hon. Friend accept that transport is an especially difficult problem when there are no buses on which to get subsidised fares; and that there is a real need to ensure that opportunities under the new deal are genuinely available in rural constituencies, such as the one I represent, and not simply theoretical possibilities?

Mr. Smith: Yes and I look forward to visiting my hon. Friend's constituency to see the work that he and the local community are doing to address those transport problems. I emphasise that new initiatives are being developed through new deal partnerships with the Rural Development Commission, TECs and local councils. Those initiatives include, for example, pooled taxi use, car sharing and even the leasing of mopeds, and the Government welcome those local initiatives to address local transport needs.

New Deal

Mr. Drew: What measures he has taken to ensure that options offered to young people on the new deal are of high quality. [14325]

Mr. Blunkett: We count quality as being of paramount importance. That is why in both the gateway and the main


programme there will be key elements, such as contacts with a personal adviser for each participant; contract team visits, which will be made from the Employment Service regions; quality inspection visits for both training and further education; and, of course, the supplementary hotline provided for those who have concerns or worries. It is vital that we work with both employers and the voluntary sector to make sure that this is not a make-work scheme, but a programme to be proud of.

Mr. Drew: I welcome my right hon. Friend's answer. May I ask that the role of the dedicated advisers be brought to the fore, especially in rural areas where people face difficulties of access and a lack of provision and where those advisers will play an interesting and important role?

Mr. Blunkett: My hon. Friend is quite right. In addition to the measures spelt out a moment ago by my right hon. Friend the Minister for Employment, Welfare to Work and Disability Rights, there will be a discretionary fund, specifically for transport, to assist those who are taking up the full-time education option in further education colleges. We want the advisers to be able to help from the moment young people enter the gateway, with education and social advice to build up their confidence and skills before they enter the main programme and so ensure that they are able to sustain the training and education elements throughout the programme.

Mr. Baldry: I am sure that the Secretary of State would agree that young people, either those in the new deal or those coming into employment generally, will be concerned about the level of the minimum wage. Both the TUC and the trade unions have made representations in respect of the minimum wage. Given the new dispensation, may we have an undertaking from the Government that if, eventually, the minimum wage is set at a level equal to or above what is proposed in those representations, the donations to the Labour party made by the trade unions before the general election will be returned to them?

Mr. Blunkett: If the Conservative party had handed back the money every time they gave a contract to or privatised a company that was associated with, or had been in any way involved with, a donation to the party through either an individual or an organisation, they would have handed back more than they have received over the past 20 years.

Miss Melanie Johnson: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, just as education would help the hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Baldry), the new deal will provide excellent opportunities to improve the employability of young people, which is an important product of the scheme? Does he also agree that it will be a high-quality scheme and not one designed purely to massage the employment figures, like those of the previous Government?

Mr. Blunkett: My hon. Friend is right. That is why every single option under the new deal will include education and training to a recognised qualification, including a year in a full-time education place. That is

why the CBI, the chambers of commerce and the representatives of small and medium-sized enterprises are so supportive of the new deal programme. They recognise, as did the CBI earlier this week, that skills for the future are crucial to the competitiveness of our nation as well as to the life chances of the individual and will be a key element in ensuring that we can encourage growth without inflation and enable our economy to succeed in the 21st century.

Mr. Don Foster: In view of the answer that the Secretary of State gave to the hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Baldry), will he confirm to the House that a contract recently given for the delivery of the new deal in Hackney was given to Reed Personnel Services, that the head of that organisation is Alec Reed, and that that gentleman is alleged to have given £100,000 to the Labour party? Although I have no reason to believe that there was any impropriety whatever in that contract, can the Secretary of State confirm his support for the Prime Minister in acknowledging the urgent need to reform party political funding to remove even the whiff of impropriety in such arrangements?

Mr. Blunkett: I am very pleased that the hon. Gentleman believes that there is not a whiff of impropriety because if he did believe that, he should say it outside the House.
Let us make this absolutely clear. No Ministers were involved with the letting of the contract—that is an absolute, unequivocal statement. There are many people who have given, during the past few years, to all three political parties, who have subsequently, through their organisation or company, bid for Government contracts. There has been nothing wrong, and no one has previously suggested that there was anything improper or lacking in probity in the system that has been operated.
If any Opposition Members have anything to suggest about the way in which the civil service does its job, they should do so and we will examine those suggestions.

Mr. Reed: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the new deal scheme will work because it is a quality scheme and is widely supported by business, the voluntary sector and participating individuals, unlike the schemes that young people have suffered in the past decade? The youth opportunities programme, youth training, the youth training scheme, training for work: you name it, we have had it.
How does my right hon. Friend intend to ensure that young people—those who will benefit from this high-quality training—are involved in consultation leading up to the start of the new deal and, more important, how will he ensure that quality is maintained throughout its delivery?

Mr. Blunkett: Quality, continuity and accountability within the scheme are features which will distinguish the new deal from the programmes and schemes that the Conservatives introduced during their 18 years in office.
It is vital to make it possible for young people to play a part in monitoring and reviewing the programme, to say what they think about the programmes that they are engaged on and, where necessary, to redesign a system that is responsive. It is vital for us to set up outreach


facilities so that that can be done. I should like to suggest that young people should be part of the review teams; in that way, we can ensure that their interests and those of their age group can properly be reflected.

Mr. Willetts: Can the Secretary of State confirm a figure researched for me by the House of Commons Library, which tells me that a young person who is unemployed already has an 84 per cent. chance of moving off benefit within a year? How much better than that does he expect to do with his welfare-to-work scheme? Can he also confirm that it was one of his socialist heroes who said that socialism is about priorities? Does he really believe that putting £3.5 billion into a problem that is obviously shrinking is the right ordering of priorities when there are so many other pressures on his budget and elsewhere?

Mr. Blunkett: I do not believe that 15,000 to 20,000 youngsters a month reaching the point where they have been unemployed or out of education for more than six months is a minor problem, or something which should not be tackled by a Government who believe in the economic gains that can be made from investing in those young people—which I described a moment ago—and in the critical nature of social cohesion, which means that we must heal our communities instead of dividing them.
I believe that the investment is worth making. If only 10,000 young people were out of work for more than six months—as opposed to the 122,000 young people in that situation at present—it would be worth applying that money to provide life chances and heal the communities in which they live. Our investment will give young people the economic opportunity to earn their own living and pay back the Exchequer, rather than drawing on it through dependence.

Mr. Barry Jones: How many new deal welfare to-work places he plans to create in (a) Wales and (b) the north-west in the next year; and if he will make a statement. [14326]

Mr. Alan Howarth: We shall offer help to everyone who becomes eligible for the new deal, and sufficient places will be available to meet that commitment. We are making very good progress in Wales, the north-west and elsewhere in planning and implementing the new deal. My right hon. Friend the Minister for Employment, Welfare to Work and Disability Rights launched the first of the pathfinder areas this morning.

Mr. Jones: Does my hon. Friend agree that Wales's recovery from the great loss of steel and coal jobs still has a long way to go? This excellent scheme might provide a real lifeline to valleys and towns in Wales. is my hon. Friend aware that in Deeside in my constituency far too many young people have aimless, hopeless lives and have no access to worthwhile work? Is there any way in which my hon. Friend might enlarge the scheme? He knows that we will never heal the wounds of Thatcherism until we give work and hope to our young people.

Mr. Howarth: My hon. Friend speaks from his deep commitment to his constituents, so many of whom have suffered as a result of the processes of industrial change. Shotton is in his constituency and Llanwern is in mine.

Although his experience of these issues is much greater than mine, I well understand the trauma and the difficulty faced by steelworkers and their families who have lost their jobs and find it desperately difficult to gain new work opportunities.
Against that background, we attach much importance to the new deal for the long-term unemployed and to ensuring that a new generation of young people does not suffer the same experiences. We are determined to make a great success of our existing commitments under the new deal, and we shall see thereafter what remains to be done.

Mr. Keetch: Does the Minister recall the commitment that Labour gave before the election to help 250,000 long-term unemployed under-25s to receive the new deal? Will he comment on the figures supplied today by the Library which suggest that only 122,000 people qualify—

Madam Speaker: Order. The question relates to projects in Wales and the north-west. I have warned the House before that supplementary questions must follow the substantive question. I know that Hereford is not far from Wales, but I do not think that the hon. Member for Hereford (Mr. Keetch) will be able to get his question in order. If any other hon. Member wishes to speak about Wales or the north-west particularly, I shall call him or her—I thought not.

Higher Education (Scottish Universities)

Miss McIntosh: If he will make a statement on funding problems in respect of students resident in England studying at Scottish universities. [14328]

Dr. Howells: Many Scottish universities offer students with good A-levels the option of entering the second year of a four-year honours course, so it should be possible for students from England and Wales to get a Scottish degree after paying for the same number of years as they would have taken to graduate at a university elsewhere in the United Kingdom. Those from low-income families will get free tuition in any case.

Miss McIntosh: How will the Minister explain to students in Pontypridd and the Vale of York that they will be disadvantaged by having to pay £1,000 more than Scottish students to do the same course? Will he tell the House how Scottish universities might make up any shortfall if students who wish to do a four-year degree—as I did at the university of Edinburgh—are not in a financial position to do so? Will he invite the Prime Minister to intervene in the dispute between the Department for Education and Employment and the Scottish Office?

Mr. Fabricant: Be statesmanlike.

Dr. Howells: Thank you very much.
First, it is not the same course and, secondly, only the wealthiest students will have to pay the £4,000. The hon. Lady asked me what I will tell the students in Pontypridd. She can be sure that I shall not feed them the litany of half-truths and lies that I have heard so often on this subject.

Mr. Welsh: Does the Minister accept that the failure to exempt English, Welsh and Northern Irish students from


tuition fees in the final year of a Scots four-year honours course will deter potential students and cause academic and economic damage? Will he follow the good Scottish Office example, provide the funds and end the discrimination against English and other students?

Dr. Howells: I hope that the hon. Gentleman listened to the reply that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State gave on the subject earlier. There are Scottish universities that already accept students with two good A-levels into the second year of four-year honours courses. I hope that they will continue to do so and that many other universities in Scotland will follow their example.

Secondary Schools (Hertfordshire)

Ms Ward: What measures he proposes for the improvement of the present admissions procedure to secondary schools in the Hertfordshire area. [14329]

Mr. Blunkett: New admissions criteria will provide for a genuine partnership to get schools to work together with their education authority, to ensure that we overcome the scandal of some parents finding that they do not have places for their children in September, because they have had to make multiple applications in a chaotic system, such as my hon. Friend must suffer in parts of Hertfordshire.

Ms Ward: I thank my right hon. Friend for his acknowledgement of the problems in Hertfordshire. Is he aware that many parents in my constituency of Watford have serious concerns about the forthcoming round of selections by academic ability, which will result in some children not obtaining a place in any school of their choice, and the subsequent emotional effect on the children? Will he assure me that, in any forthcoming legislation, he will take into account the specific difficulties that face Watford and south-west Hertfordshire in the admissions process for secondary schools?

Mr. Blunkett: I will give my hon. Friend the absolute assurance that we will do so. Parents and children deserve a system that meets their needs and in which their preference is respected, rather than the school choosing the pupil, and chaotic multiple admissions systems that result in children failing to have a place, and therefore failing to have the opportunity that others take for granted.

Mr. Dorrell: Can the Secretary of State clear up a misunderstanding which was raised with me when I was in a Hertfordshire school last week? Does the right hon. Gentleman remember telling the Labour party conference that, under a Labour Government, there would be no return to selection? Will he confirm to the House that his White Paper makes it clear that specialist schools will be able to give priority to children who demonstrate a special aptitude? Can the Secretary of State make it clear to the House and the people of Hertfordshire what made him change his mind, or is there a difference between selection and giving priority to those who demonstrate aptitude?

Mr. Blunkett: The right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends know perfectly well that recognising an aptitude

for music is entirely different from selecting a child by the 11-plus examination. We all know that the commitment that I have given on selection stands. It will stand. The admissions criteria that I will publish, and the Bill that we will pass through Parliament, will ensure that every child has the opportunity to use his or her talents to the full.

Special Needs

Mr. Bercow: What recent representations he has received concerning the special educational needs of children. [14330]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Ms Estelle Morris): We are beginning to receive responses to the Green Paper "Excellence for all Children", which was published on 22 October. 1 look forward to hearing from a wide range of interests during consultation on the Green Paper.

Mr. Bercow: I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. Does she recognise that the policy of integrating children in special schools in mainstream education must have strict limits to it, for there are children whose presence in the classroom would be detrimental to the education of their peers? That point has been regularly impressed upon me by teachers in the 21 schools in the Buckinghamshire constituency that I have visited since 1 May.

Ms Morris: Of course I recognise that, and the Green Paper recognises it as well. There are some pupils for whom it is more appropriate, in their interests and in the interests of children who might be educated in the same class, that they go to a special school, perhaps for a short time, and not always for the whole of their career. Throughout the country, there are good examples of schools that include children with disabilities and children with special needs in mainstream classes. We want to encourage that. There are good reasons why, wherever possible, children who are deemed to have special educational needs should be educated with children of their age in mainstream classes. We will encourage that by spreading good practice and by reversing the cut that the Conservative Government made to the money available to schools to make the adaptations necessary for access.

Rev. Martin Smyth: Will the Minister confirm that there needs to be better teacher training so that teachers are able to identify more quickly children who have special needs such as dyslexia and autism? It is important that those children's needs are dealt with earlier.

Ms Morris: The hon. Gentleman is entirely right. It is sad that many children who go through the school system with the designation of SEN would have had different levels of attainment had their special needs been recognised at an early stage. We should be trying to recognise children with special difficulties even before they start school.
That is why in our early years development plans, which we have recently launched, we have insisted that, when local authorities and others plan places for children under five, they listen to those with expertise in SEN so


that the identification to which the hon. Gentleman referred can be made early and immediate action taken to support those children. If we get that right, many of the problems that surface later in a school career will not surface.

Mrs. Browning: When the Minister announces the outcomes of the review of special educational needs and whatever changes she decides to make, will she confirm that there will be no diminution in the current protection that the individual child has under the law—I stress "under the law"—and that existing statutes will be maintained?

Ms Morris: The hon. Lady is absolutely right. We have not suggested that the rights of a child or a parent will be changed by some of the ideas that we have put forward. The hon. Lady's supplementary question gives me the opportunity to say that parents will retain the right to seek a statement, if that is what they feel that their child needs, and to go before a tribunal.
The hon. Lady must remember, however, that, for every parent who is pushed into having to obtain a statement to get the help that his or her child needs, time and money are involved which could be better used in supporting the child without having to go through the statementing process. If there are any changes to legislation that emerge from our consultations on the Green Paper, we shall make a statement to the House.

Lifelong Learning (Coalfields)

Mr. Ennis: What assessment he has made of the coalfields learning initiative partnership; and if he will make a statement on the long-term financial security of grassroots lifelong learning projects in coalfield areas. [14331]

Dr. Howells: It is too early to form an assessment of the coalfields learning initiative partnership, but we welcome its provision of adult education learning opportunities in former coalfield areas. Lifelong learning and the creation of a learning society are at the heart of our education and training policies.

Mr. Ennis: Projects within the partnership have been an excellent vehicle for driving forward the Government's commitment to lifelong learning processes and the reduction of unemployment, especially in places such as the Acorn centre in Grimethorpe in my constituency. Does my hon. Friend agree that such schemes are now established as a key component of post-16 education in the coalfield areas? Will he make the Further Education Funding Council aware of their success?

Dr. Howells: My hon. Friend has drawn the attention of the House to an important project which is operating in a hard-hit area. Indeed, nowhere has been hit harder than Grimethorpe. I know that my hon. Friend is doing an excellent job in representing the interests of his constituents.
I hope that the partnership will look to European structural funds for support and examine every opportunity to use partnership approaches for funding in

future when the present arrangements come to an end. I shall certainly bring my hon. Friend's suggestion to the FEFC's attention.

Church Schools

Mr. Waterson: What proposals he has for further support for Church schools; and if he will make a statement. [14333]

The Minister for School Standards (Mr. Stephen Byers): rose—

Hon. Members: Hear, hear.

Mr. Byers: Thank you so much. I felt the same myself.
We have had detailed discussions with the Churches about the new school framework. We recently announced developments to that framework to meet representations made by the Churches, with a view to safeguarding the ethos of Church schools within an education service based on partnership and co-operation. I am pleased to say that the Churches have welcomed those developments.

Mr. Waterson: I notice that it has taken until nearly 3.20 pm for the Minister for School Standards to make it to the Dispatch Box.
Will the Minister assure the House that voluntary-controlled schools will be able to opt to become aided schools sooner rather than later, and that if they do so they will not have to pay retrospective compensation to local education authorities?

Mr. Byers: I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman came into the Chamber at 3.15 pm. I was getting worried that I would not have a single question to answer.
The Government have listened to representations made by the Church authorities, in the light of which the Bill will be revised. The Government are prepared to take on board the views expressed by other parties because we know that any changes that we introduce will mean a better Bill which will serve the interests of the nation's children—unlike the previous Conservative Government whose policies were based on arrogance and dogma, who did not listen and who, as a result, were rejected on 1 May.

New Deal

Ms Drown: How he will ensure that small and medium enterprises are able to be involved in the Government's new deal to help young people move from welfare to work. [14334]

Mr. Andrew Smith: Small and medium businesses are crucial to the success of the new deal. We are working hard to secure their involvement by reflecting their views in the design and delivery of the new deal, by helping them through local partnerships and by targeting national promotion to encourage their further involvement.

Ms Drown: I welcome that response. Swindon has fewer young unemployed people than many other parts of Britain; nevertheless, they are a priority for the business community and the Employment Service. Swindon is


aware of the Government's larger welfare-to-work programme and wants it to succeed, but the current welfare-to-work programme requires each area to go forward at the same rate. Will my hon. Friend consider bringing forward some parts of the scheme so that, from April, which is sooner than currently planned, areas such as Swindon can move forward to help the long-term unemployed and lone parents, particularly the long-term unemployed?

Mr. Smith: The programme for the long-term unemployed will start in June. I thank my hon. Friend for her constituency work in promoting the new deal. She refers to the particularly acute needs of some of those eligible for the new deal programme in her constituency. In that regard, the gateway provision is crucial, providing personal support, assessment, mentoring and help with basic skills, and it will be brought forward as quickly as possible to help the constituents of my hon. Friend and others.

Mr. Brady: Given that the Government apparently believe that the job subsidy under the new deal will create more jobs in small and medium enterprises, is it not obvious and unavoidable that the introduction of the minimum wage will cost jobs?

Mr. Smith: The new deal will result in extra employment opportunities in small and medium enterprises precisely because the prospect of that subsidy and support in obtaining a trained and ready-to-work young person can make a critical difference to whether someone is taken on. The Low Pay Commission will recommend the level of the minimum wage, taking full account of employment needs. Rather than carping about the new deal, the hon. Gentleman, like so many other hon. Members, should get behind it in his constituency to end the scandal of long-term youth unemployment and help business.

Universities (Financial Support)

Dr. Kumar: If he will make a statement on the level of financial support for universities in 1998–99. [14336]

Dr. Howells: We have taken decisive action to deal with the serious funding problems facing universities. For 1998–99, my right hon. Friend has announced that an extra £165 million will be spent on higher education, including an extra £125 million to enable universities and colleges to maintain and improve quality and standards, and to make a start on the backlog of maintenance and equipment replacement.

Dr. Kumar: I thank my hon. Friend for his reply. The Secretary of State's announcement of £165 million for higher education is a tremendous support. Will my hon. Friend seriously consider one aspect of the Dearing report which has been overlooked? Universities face a crisis in funding for research, infrastructure and equipment, for which £400 million to £500 million is required. I urge him to reconsider the funding proposals or make additional funding available.

Dr. Howells: We are examining the issue carefully. We are worried about the fact that some colleges and

universities have closed important research sectors in their institutions. We are talking to colleagues in the Department of Trade and Industry and in other Departments concerned with this issue, and we shall ensure that this country retains an excellent research base.

Mr. St. Aubyn: Will the Minister confirm that he has already taken the decision to withdraw from local education authorities the power to make discretionary awards to students in higher education? Why has he done that without proper consultation? Is he aware that, in taking away those discretionary awards, he is also taking away the student's right to the appeal process? In Surrey county, that process has enabled up to 40 per cent. of students to get at least part of the award for which they had applied.

Dr. Howells: We have made no such decision; nor have we made any such announcement.

New Deal

Dr. Stoate: What has been the response of employers to the new deal for young unemployed people. [14337]

Mr. Andrew Smith: Employers across the country are responding positively to the new deal by pledging support, and by following up those pledges with practical action.

Dr. Stoate: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply; it will be good news to young, unemployed people in my constituency of Dartford and elsewhere. Does he agree with me that the new deal allows employers to address the skills shortage, which causes so much damage to British competitiveness?

Mr. Smith: Absolutely. This is the right time to introduce the new deal. It maximises the opportunities for young, unemployed people to obtain work, and it helps business by ensuring that young people are equipped with skills and are prepared for work, so that they can develop their training towards a recognised qualification while in employment. That will benefit my hon. Friend's constituents and thousands of others across the country.

Mr. Rowe: Does the Minister agree that, as a result of the steadily falling unemployment inherited from the previous Government, the proportion of young people who require the scheme and who are very disadvantaged, because of their social background, lack of education or other skill shortages, is growing? None of those people will be attractive to employers. Will the Minister give us an assurance that the time taken to get those young people up to the threshold at which most other young people start such schemes will be extended, so that they are on a level playing field and can benefit from the scheme?

Mr. Smith: The hon. Gentleman raises an important point. I appreciate the understanding and sensitivity that he shows towards the young unemployed in his constituency, and towards the programme. As the overall numbers fall, those in particular need constitute a greater proportion. That is why the gateway period of up to four months of assessment, counselling and help with basic


skills is so important. It also gives people the opportunity to try tasters of the different options available through the new deal.
In response to consultation over the summer, the Government have introduced another opportunity, whereby young people with particularly acute needs can, after the gateway period, have three months' intensive basic education and skills training, before going on to employment.
This is all about enhancing the employability of young people. It is founded on the good and wise principle that those who most need it will receive the greatest help.

Degree Courses

Mr. Illsley: What representations he has received regarding proposals to restrict colleges to offering degree courses by only one validating university. [14338]

Dr. Howells: We have received a wide range of responses to the recommendation by the National

Committee of Inquiry into Higher Education on the issue. The Government will announce its response to that and other recommendations soon.

Mr. Illsley: I thank my hon. Friend for his reply.
My constituency has benefited greatly from Barnsley college's ability to offer degree courses franchised through both Sheffield and Leeds universities. The benefits to my constituency, not only educational but social, have been very welcome. May I therefore ask my hon. Friend to reject the Dearing recommendation, and allow colleges such as mine to continue to franchise degrees through more than one university?

Dr. Howells: As my hon. Friend probably knows, the majority of the responses received so far to Sir Ron Dearing's proposals have been opposed to multiple franchising, or serial franchising as it is sometimes called, arguing that it should be stopped. They recognise, however, that there might be occasions when, for geographical or subject-related reasons, that would be impossible. I am sure that my colleagues will consider the matter carefully when we formulate our responses to Sir Ron's proposals.

Business of the House

Mrs. Gillian Shephard: May I ask the Leader of the House to give next week's business?

The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mrs. Ann Taylor): The business for next week will be as follows.
MONDAY 17 NOVEMBER—Opposition Day [4th allotted day] [first part].
Until 7 pm, there will be a debate entitled "Public Services Under Threat" on a motion in the name of the Liberal Democrats.
Motion to approve the seventh and eighth reports from the Select Committee on Standards and Privileges.
TUESDAY 18 NOVEMBER—Second Reading of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Bill.
WEDNESDAY 19 NOVEMBER—Until 2 pm, there will be debates on the motion for the Adjournment of the House.
Consideration in Committee of the Greater London Authority (Referendum) Bill [first day].
THURSDAY 20 NOVEMBER—Motion to take note of the outstanding reports of the Public Accounts Committee to which a Government reply has been given. Details will be given in the Official Report.
FRIDAY 21 NOVEMBER—Debate on the review of civil justice and legal aid on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
The provisional business for the following week will be as follows.
MONDAY 24 NOVEMBER—Conclusion of consideration in Committee of the Greater London Authority (Referendum) Bill.
TUESDAY 25 NOVEMBER—Second Reading of the European Parliamentary Elections Bill.
WEDNESDAY 26 NOVEMBER—Until 2 pm, there will be debates on the motion for the Adjournment of the House.
Until about 7 pm, Third Reading of the Greater London Authority (Referendum) Bill.
Remaining stages of the Special Immigration Appeals Commission Bill [Lords].
Consideration of Lords amendments to the Plant Varieties Bill.
THURSDAY 27 NOVEMBER—Consideration in Committee of the European Communities (Amendment) Bill [first day].
FRIDAY 28 NOVEMBER—Private Members' Bills.
The House will also wish to know that on Wednesday 19 November there will be a debate on transmissible spongiform encephalopathies: controls on cattle, sheep and goats, in European Standing Committee A, and a debate on the draft general budget for 1998 in European Standing Committee B, as I announced last week.
The House will also wish to know that it is proposed that on Tuesday 25 November there will be a debate on biotechnological inventions in European Standing Committee B, and on Wednesday 26 November there will be a debate on food law in European Standing Committee A.
Details of the relevant documents will be given in the Official Report.
I remind the House that all Members may attend a European Standing Committee, and participate in questions to the Minister and in the debate that follows.

[Wednesday 19 November:

European Standing Committee A—Relevant European Community document: 10040/97, TSE: Prohibition of Risk Material. Relevant European Legislation Committee reports: HC 15-iii (1997–98) and HC 155-iv (1997–98).

European Standing Committee B—Relevant European Community documents: 10153/97, Draft General Budget 1998; PE 262.699, 1998 Budget. Relevant European Legislation Committee reports: HC 155-iv (1997–98) and HC 155-vi (1997–98).

Tuesday 25 November:

European Standing Committee B—Relevant European Community document: 10510/97, Biotechnological Inventions. Relevant European Legislation Committee report: HC 155-v (1997–98).

Wednesday 26 November:

European Standing Committee A—Relevant European Community documents: 8150/97, Food Law; 8386/97, Consumer Health and Food Safety. Relevant European Legislation Committee reports: HC I55-ii (1997–98) and HC 155-v (1997–98).

Thursday 20 November:

Debate on a motion to take note of the outstanding reports of the Public Accounts Committee. Relevant reports:


Reports Session 1996–97


Report No:
Title
HC No.
Publication Date


1
The office of Gas Supply: The Regulation of Gas Tariffs (The Gas Cost Index)
37
14 November


2
Progress in Completing the New British Library
38
20 November


3
The Sale of the Mining Operations of the British Coal Corporation
60
21 November


4
The Construction of Quarry House
69
27 November


5
Highways Agency: The Bridge Programme
83
28 November


6
The Audit of European Community Transactions
84
4 December


7
The Hospital Information Support Systems Initiative
97
5 December


8
Information Technology Services Agency: Outsourcing The Service Delivery Operations
98
11 December


9
Resource Accounting and Proposals for a Resource-based System of Supply
167
15 January


10
Excess Vote NI DHSS

19 February


11
Excess Votes Classes 1, IV, VII, XIII, XIV, XVII (7&13)
293
13 February


12
ODA: Turkish Universities Equipment Project
70
27 February


13
H M Treasury: The Second Sale of Shares in National Power and PowerGen
151
6 March






Report No:
Title
HC No.
Publication Date


14
Dept for Education & Employment: Financial Control of Payments made under the Training for Work and Youth Training Programmes in England
61
13 March


15
The Award of the First Three Passenger Rail Franchises
39
13 March


16
Office of Electricity Regulation, Office of Gas Supply: The Work of the Directors General of Telecommunications, Gas Supply, Water Services and Electricity Supply
89
19 March


17
Health of the Nation: A Progress Report
85
20 March


18
National Savings: Financial Reporting
214
25 March


19
Former Yorkshire Regional Health Authority
432
26 March


20
Payments to the National Lottery Distribution Fund
99
27 March


21
The Management of Space in Higher Education Institutions in Wales
159
2 April


22
British Rail Maintenance Limited: The Sale of Maintenance Depots
168
3 April


23
Ministry of Defence: The Financial Management of the Military Operation in the Former Yugoslavia
242
4 April


24
Department of Transport: Freight Facilities Grants in England
284
8 April


25
Plymouth Development Corporation: Regularity Propriety and Control of Expenditure
450
8 April


REPLIES



Treasury Minute on the First to Eighth Reports from the Committee of Public Accounts 1996–97
CM 3559
12 February 1997



Treasury Minute on the Ninth Report from the Committee of Public Accounts 1996–97
CM 3577
12 March 1997



Treasury Minute on the Twelfth to Twenty-Fifth Reports from the Committee of Public Accounts 1996–97
CM 3714
16 July 1997

Mrs. Shephard: I thank the right hon. Lady for her reply. It helps the House to be given two weeks' business, and to hear the fuller statements that she is giving.
The right hon. Lady will recall that the Prime Minister said yesterday that he would set out the Government's position on the tobacco sponsorship ban with "enthusiasm and relish". As he apparently omitted some information, which has since emerged overnight, will she arrange an early opportunity for him to set out the Government's position with not only enthusiasm and relish, but completeness?
Does the right hon. Lady agree that, if the Secretary of State for Health had bothered to make a statement to the House about Government policy on tobacco sponsorship, as he should have done, instead of announcing it outside, and if the Minister for Public Health had done the House

the courtesy of informing it of the Government's change of policy on the matter, as she should have done, instead of announcing it on the "Today" programme, the Government not only might have avoided much of the bother that they have created for themselves over the affair, but would have demonstrated that they have, after all, some regard for parliamentary democracy and convention?
As the right hon. Lady may know, the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) said yesterday on the Jimmy Young programme that it is the Minister without Portfolio who is running the Labour party. If she agrees with her hon. Friend, perhaps she could arrange for the Minister to appear at the Dispatch Box slightly more frequently than once every six months and for slightly longer than five minutes. She will know that last Monday's occasion was a terrible disappointment to the House. Given the great role ascribed to the Minister by the hon. Member for Brent, East, surely the House should be given more ample opportunity to question him.
Will the right hon. Lady make a statement to the House to confirm, or otherwise, that a substantial amount of office accommodation in the Cloisters, which was formerly used by hon. Members, has now been allocated to something called the parliamentary Labour party resource centre? If that is so, is not the taxpayer subsidising the Labour party's political activities within the House? Is not the centre taking up much needed office space, which should be for the use of elected Members of Parliament, including Labour Members?

Mrs. Taylor: I hope to be able to give two weeks' notice of business quite often. I cannot promise to do it on all occasions, and the second week's business will be provisional, of course, but I undertake to try to give as much notice of business as possible, and I am grateful to the right hon. Lady for her comments.
On the Prime Minister's answers yesterday, I do not think that there was a question asked by a Conservative Member that he did not answer fully, completely and enthusiastically. I am not sure which information the right hon. Lady thinks has come to light overnight. Does the Conservative party want to criticise the Labour party for taking an open donation, for giving back a donation and for refusing a donation? Other hon. Members might like a debate on all political funding in the past few years. For Conservative Members to complain about tobacco advertising is a bit of a cheek, as they never lifted a finger to tackle that problem.
On the right hon. Lady's comments about my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone), I do not have time to listen to the Jimmy Young programme, so I missed his comments, but if she accurately reported what he said, on this occasion, he is mistaken. We have ample opportunity to question the person who is running the country—the Prime Minister.
The right hon. Lady is right to say that the resource centre is now in office accommodation in the Cloisters, having vacated its previous room to accommodate the needs of an hon. Member.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Will my right hon. Friend take on board the idea of having several debates about political funding because, contrary to the view that is expressed by a few Tories as of now, it would help us considerably to take the lid off all those donations to the Tory party when it was in government?


It was not a full statement yesterday by the Opposition because they omitted to mention that they had received £14 million from Bernie Ecclestone and did not give it back. Also, they made no mention of the money that they received from a crook, Asil Nadir, who gave them £440,000 which they did not give back. What is more, it has now come to light that they received more than £1 million from a Hong Kong family dealing in heroin. The money was made out of heroin dealing and was used to help them with their election campaign. It is time to lift the real lid.

Mrs. Taylor: My hon. Friend is making a strong case for a debate such as he mentioned; we could make good use of parliamentary time on such issues. My problem is that we have such a crowded programme. However, issues such as this will not go away and will be aired at some time in some place.

Mr. Paul Tyler: Will the Leader of the House switch her attention from contaminated donations to contaminated land? Is she aware that there have been conflicting statements in the past few days from Ministers in the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions? The Minister for the Regions, Regeneration and Planning said that he still expects to be able to site development to the tune of 50 per cent. on brown land rather than taking green-field sites, whereas the Minister for the Environment said that the work that should be undertaken to decontaminate contaminated land cannot go forward, because the Treasury cannot afford the very small sum—£14 million—that is necessary to progress that programme. May we be assured that there will be a Green Paper, a statement and a debate on the Government's intentions with regard to the development of green-field and brown-field sites in the near future?

Mrs. Taylor: I think that the hon. Gentleman knows that the Government are committed to protecting the countryside and to helping regenerate towns and cities and provide the housing that is required. It is always a difficult balance under any Government. Each case has to be decided on its merits. I know that the specific problem of decontamination is very difficult, because there are often technical as well as financial problems. I cannot promise the hon. Gentleman time for a debate, but I shall bring his concerns to the attention of my right hon. and hon. Friends.

Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: May I press my right hon. Friend on the issue raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner)? May we have a debate on the Ecclestone contributions? We are told that he paid £10 million to the Tories and lent them £4 million. It is either true or not true. If it is true, surely an Opposition Member should come to the Dispatch Box, admit that it is true and tell us what the Opposition did in return for that money. What did they do for the money?

Mrs. Taylor: My hon. Friend again tempts me to agree to a debate on the issue that he mentioned. I see the strength of that case, not least because I recall the many occasions on which I and my hon. Friends sat on the Opposition Benches asking that the Nolan committee be

allowed to look at those issues before the election. Had that happened, this information would have come to light much earlier.

Mr. Eric Forth: May I offer the right hon. Lady a constructive suggestion? We should have a rolling debate on political donations, starting with a debate on the moralistic posturings of a political party that makes high-sounding noises about these matters, and going on with a continuing debate so that each time a revelation is dragged out of the Government by the media, we can debate that new fact.

Mrs. Taylor: I have to remind the right hon. Gentleman that Members of the previous Parliament of course had opportunities to vote for complete openness on political donations. I cannot remember him joining us in the Lobby.

Mr. Eric Martlew: Can the Leader of the House find time for a debate on the performance of the west coast main line? As she will be aware, I have a special interest in that. I attended the press conference in March, when Virgin was awarded the franchise. Given all the private companies, I welcomed that. We were told that there would be 90 per cent. reliability in a year. This month, we have found out that the line is the worst performing railway in the country.
The journey from London to my constituency takes four hours. Last week, a train took nine hours. Earlier in the week, a train did not start out for Carlisle because the company forgot to roster a driver. The situation is getting worse.
I appreciate that the problems are not all Virgin's—many of them are Railtrack's. Unless the problems are put right, Cumbria will not be able to exist as an economic unit until we have the tilting train and the 140 mph train in seven years' time. We need action now.

Mrs. Taylor: My hon. Friend raises a problem which is clearly of great concern to him and his constituents. It must be very depressing to be told that the line is the worst in the country and to endure experiences such as those that he described. I am sure that my hon. Friends in the relevant Department—and, indeed, the Rail Regulator—are aware of the problems. My hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew) has made a strong case for highlighting the problem, but I am afraid that I cannot find time for a debate in the near future.

Mr. Ian Bruce: The right hon. Lady will know that, although six months have elapsed since the election, we do not yet have the Register of Members' Interests. May we have a debate to help hon. Members understand the rules? Under current rules, all of us must declare the amount and the donor concerning any outside interest or any funding of our private political offices.
The Leader of the House will know that current advice from the registrar is that blind trusts do not mean that such information need not be put into the public domain. Two right hon. Members, who are now the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister, received money in that way. Such information needs to be published to conform with the rules of the House. We need a debate so that


matters can be brought out into the open. Otherwise, everyone could claim to have received—or be accused of having received—contributions from blind trusts.

Mrs. Taylor: On the last point, I remind the hon. Gentleman that he and his hon. Friends tried to make that point during the previous Parliament, and it was established without doubt that my right hon. Friends obeyed the rules that were in place at that time. It is important that all hon. Members understand the rules. The forms sent out and the advice available are very clear. Of course, we now also have a code of conduct. The register will be published later this month.

Ms Helen Southworth: May we have an early debate on the hazards of laser pointers? On Friday, the eyes of a young girl in my constituency were damaged in her school playground by a laser used by another pupil. The Trading Standards Authority told me that, of the 49 laser pointers that it has tested, fewer than 5 per cent. were safe. It also told me that some of the type 2 lasers that it had taken were in fact type 3 and hazardous. It is very concerned about that. As the House will understand, I, too, am very concerned about the hazards to children in my constituency.

Mrs. Taylor: I sympathise with the experience of my hon. Friend's constituent. To have somebody hurt in such a way in the school playground must be extremely alarming. I know that, in my constituency, a bus driver found himself under threat because of the misuse of laser pointers.
The police already have the power to consider laser pointers as offensive weapons when they are used in such a way. My hon. Friend the Minister for Competition and Consumer Affairs announced on 28 October that he was urging trading standards departments to use their powers under 1994 regulations to remove dangerous laser pens and pointers from sale. If there is a problem with classification, such as my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington, South (Ms Southworth) has indicated, I shall ensure that my hon. Friend the Minister is aware of the potential problem.

Rev. Martin Smyth: In the light of press reports that the Government will appoint a commission to consider proportional representation, may we have a statement so that hon. Members who have experience of the two forms of PR elections held in the United Kingdom may contribute to the debate?

Mrs. Taylor: The electoral commission has not yet been appointed; nor have its terms of reference yet been made public or, indeed, completed. I know that some hon. Members have experience of PR, and in the next few months that matter will probably be debated on several occasions.

Mr. Harry Barnes: As a little, bald-headed, man in his sixties, with glasses and false teeth and whose trousers do not match his jacket, I may seem an unlikely moderniser. However, I wish to press my right hon. Friend to consider having a debate on modernisation in Government time—although on a

different subject from the debate that we are about to have—to discuss a modern, technologically up-to-date electoral registration system, including rolling registers; access to polling stations for disabled people; the measure that I introduced yesterday to ensure the registration of homeless people; whether expatriates should be excluded from the register; and whether people resident in this country, from outside the Commonwealth and the Republic of Ireland, should also be on our electoral registers, as they are part of our society and pay their taxes here.

Mrs. Taylor: I have no problems in thinking of my hon. Friend as a moderniser, especially on that subject, because he has campaigned for a significant time for changes, with much justification. I am sure that improvements can be made in the system of registration, and a review is currently examining what can be done. My hon. Friend may have heard my hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and Housing say only this week that, together with local authorities, she is now examining the possibility of using different types of buildings, including possibly supermarkets, as centres for voting, to make it easier for people to exercise their democratic rights. I do not know whether that is too modern for my hon. Friend, but I hope that he appreciates that much thought is going into the subject.

Mr. Christopher Gill: The House will have noted the right hon. Lady's reluctance to grant a debate on the funding of political parties and drawn conclusions from that. May I suggest that we might discuss another funding matter—the funding of local authorities? Her colleagues in shire halls and town halls up and down the country are greatly concerned about the likelihood that the funding for local authorities will be infinitely less generous under this Government than under the previous Administration. The title for the debate could be "Rate Capping", given the commitment in the Labour party manifesto to abolish rate capping and the more recent confirmation from the Minister for Local Government and Housing that the Government intend to abolish crude and universal capping. May we have a debate on that subject?

Mrs. Taylor: I am not at all reluctant to find time to debate the funding of political parties. The problem is that we have a crowded programme and, although several of my hon. Friends have pointed out why we should be tempted to have such a debate, we have little time to do so.
There will be a statement before Christmas about the funding of local authorities, and the hon. Gentleman may be able to participate in that. Many local authorities are very grateful for the extra money for education that the Government have been able to find.

Mr. John Austin: I welcome my right hon. Friend's statement, giving time to make progress on the measure to restore democratic government to London. She will know that when the Greater London council was abolished, the responsibility for the local authority housing in Thamesmead and for all the development land and other assets was transferred to a private development company. The assurances about community participation in the company given by the Minister at the time—the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young)—have been broken. My right hon. Friend may know that in the past few weeks,


directors elected to represent the community have been hounded out of office after being forced to take polygraph tests. Will she find time for a debate on the future of Thamesmead, the restoration of democracy to the democracy-free zone of Thamesmead and the abolition of Thamesmead Town Ltd.?

Mrs. Taylor: I am not aware of the details of the situation to which my hon. Friend refers, and I am not sure whether it is within the scope of the measure that I announced we are to debate next week. He may consider such a topic to be suitable for an Adjournment debate.

Mr. Andrew Welsh: Is the Leader of the House aware that the Scottish Office released the report "Government Expenditure and Revenue for Scotland" this morning and held a private press briefing? That report is not yet available from the Vote Office or the Scottish Office, in spite of repeated requests by hon. Members. Will she ensure that those matters are dealt with in the House and not at private press briefings?

Mrs. Taylor: I shall look into that.

Mr. David Winnick: Is there not a case for having an early debate on political party funding? Would it not be useful? Such a debate would show us whether the Conservative Opposition are in favour of disclosing in full all those who donate large sums to political parties, whether they are in favour of a ban on foreign donations and whether they take the view, as we do, that there should be a cap on the amount that can be spent in general elections—just as there is in constituency campaigning, where there is no controversy. Throughout the 18 years when many of us made proposals—through ten-minute Bills and questions—the Conservative Government were totally opposed to any reform of political funding. The Conservatives are about the last people in the world who should give us lectures.

Mrs. Taylor: My hon. Friend is quite right, and he is consistent. He was one of those who, in the previous Parliament, on several occasions raised the question whether political funding should be referred to the Nolan committee. Had our frequent requests been granted, the Conservative party's problems with political party funding might not have occurred.

Mr. Keith Simpson: Will the Leader of the House return to a question put by the shadow Leader of the House, my right hon. Friend the Member for South-West Norfolk (Mrs. Shephard)? After questions to the Secretary of State for culture and popular enlightenment on Monday, there was a five-minute slot to discuss the millennium experience and for the Minister without Portfolio to answer questions. We had waited six months, and many hon. Members on both sides wanted to ask legitimate questions. I and many others had never seen the Minister without Portfolio before, and thought that he was a figment of virtual reality—until I realised that I had seen him before. On Wednesday afternoons, he is the chap who plays peekaboo behind the Chair—like Kenneth Williams, frowning at Labour Members and saying, "Ooh, you are awful." This project involves millions of pounds and is supposed to be a national celebration of the

millennium. We need the Minister responsible to come here more frequently than once every six months for five minutes.

Mrs. Taylor: The special slot for millennium questions was the result of popular demand. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister without Portfolio will be glad to know that he is so popular.

Ms Beverley Hughes: May I welcome the appointment of Chief Constable Keith Hellawell as co-ordinator of the Government's drugs initiatie—an appointment which has been widely welcomed? Many of us wait with anticipation for his work to start, because drugs continue to be a significant problem, affecting many of our young people and associated with high levels of crime. When will my right hon. Friend be in a position to make a statement to the House on the terms of reference of his appointment, and on his immediate and long-term objectives and how he may set about achieving them?

Mrs. Taylor: There has been a significant welcome for Keith Hellawell's appointment. Whether we use the term drugs tsar or anti-drugs co-ordinator, it is an important role and his job will be to advise Government on how we can build on the current strategy. Drugs are a significant problem and do indeed wreck many people's lives and cause a great deal of criminal activity.
It is hoped that early in the new year Keith Hellawell will be able to publish more information and present reports to the Government. At present, he is still a chief constable, although he is spending some time on his new post, and certainly in preparation, and I hope that both sides of the House will welcome his appointment and agree that tackling drugs should not be a party political issue.

Mr. Nicholas Soames: Does the Leader of the House accept that the whole House should be truly shocked by the levity with which she treated the question of my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Norfolk (Mr. Simpson) about questions on the millennium dome? Does not she think it incredible that we have not been granted a debate on the Floor of the House to allow us to test and probe the extent and nature of a project that will spend £750 million of taxpayers' money? Is not that completely improper in terms of parliamentary accountability?

Mrs. Taylor: We will not take any lectures from the hon. Gentleman, who was a member of a Government who did not believe in accountability at all.

Mr. John McDonnell: In the light of newspaper reports this morning that Conservative peers are planning to vote against key elements of the programme on which the Government were elected, will my right hon. Friend allow an early debate on the proposed abolition of the hereditary peerage? As there are murmurings that they may vote against a ban on hunting, will she act with some urgency, so that the hunters may feel what it is like to be hunted?

Mrs. Taylor: My hon. Friend raises an interesting issue. I am afraid that I cannot find time for such a debate in the near future, but I shall keep it in mind.

Mr. Andrew Rowe: Will the Leader of the House arrange for a statement next week


to update us on the number of members of the Labour party elected to public office who are currently under suspension, and perhaps let us know what the party's target is for Christmas?

Mrs. Taylor: Internal Labour party matters are not a subject for debate in the House.

Mr. Gordon Prentice: May I renew my call for an early debate on the operation of the law of perjury? Does my right hon. Friend share my disquiet that, in the many months that have passed since Jonathan Aitken discontinued his libel action against The Guardian, the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis has spent only 35 days—that is one officer working for 35 days—investigating the serious allegations of perjury against that former Cabinet Minister and Conservative Member of Parliament? Is not there a pressing case for an early debate on the matter?

Mrs. Taylor: I do not think that I can find time for such a debate, but I shall draw my hon. Friend's comments to the relevant Ministers' attention.

Mr. John Bercow: Having listened to hon. Members' views, can the right hon. Lady confirm that the Prime Minister will make a statement to the House next week on the formula one fiasco, so that instead of continuing to pretend that his handling of the matter has been flawless and fooling no one, he can take the opportunity to show a little humility and strength of character by apologising to the House for his errors of judgment on the matter?

Mrs. Taylor: I do not think that there is any requirement for any apology for any errors of judgment. The decisions that were taken were the right decisions, taken for the right reasons.

Mr. Colin Pickthall: My right hon. Friend may have noticed that at Question Time, many hon. Members expressed their concerns about higher education funding. She will also have noticed that

yesterday in another place, there was a debate about preserving the grotesque overfunding of the Oxford and Cambridge colleges. Could not those matters be usefully brought together in a debate, so that right hon. and hon. Members who represent other universities and colleges of higher education can discuss how to redistribute that money?

Mrs. Taylor: As I do not read them out, my hon. Friend may not know that the debates next Wednesday morning include one on Oxford and Cambridge college fees.

Mr. Graham Brady: I was surprised that the Leader of the House did not respond more favourably to earlier requests for an urgent debate on local government finance in the light of this morning's Audit Commission report, which shows a £1 billion shortfall in the local authority pension fund arising from the number of early retirements. It is projected in a few years to amount to some 12 per cent. of the local government salary bill. The Accounts Commission for Scotland suggests that the Government's changes to advance corporation tax will add 3.5 per cent. of the local authority salary bill to the cost of maintaining pension funds.

Mrs. Taylor: The hon. Gentleman is right that an awful lot of money is spent that way, but the liability has not built up since May. Local authority finances are debated in the House from time to time. The next significant discussion of such issues will be on a statement on what used to be the rate support grant settlement, which, as I said earlier, will be later this year.

BILL PRESENTED

RELIGIOUS DISCRIMINATION

Mr. John Austin, supported by Mr. David Atkinson, Mr. Simon Hughes, Fiona Mactaggart, Mr. Terry Rooney and Mr. Marsha Singh, presented a Bill to make discrimination on grounds of religion unlawful; to outlaw incitement to religious hatred; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 30 January, and to be printed [Bill 82].

Parliamentary Contributory Pension Fund

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That Mr. John Butterfill, Dr Vincent Cable, Mr. Barry Gardiner, Mr. John MacGregor, Dr Nick Palmer, Dr Howard Stoate, Ms Gisela Stuart and Paddy Tipping be appointed Managing Trustees of the Parliamentary Contributory Pension Fund in pursuance of Section I of the Parliamentary and other Pensions Act 1987.—[Mr. McFall.]

Sir Peter Emery: I wish to refer to the hon. Members who are to be appointed trustees, because it is important that something that has, historically, involved considerable battling over many years should be understood by the new trustees. I think that at least five of the eight came to the House at this year's general election.
I am in a happy position because what I am going to say cannot affect me, though it can affect a host of other Members. You will recall, Madam Speaker, that the Labour party won a famous victory by defeating a motion of the Conservative Government in July 1980. It was decided that the pension accrual rate should not be one sixtieth but one fortieth; in other words, that people who had served 20 years in the House could have half pensions. I am delighted to say that the right hon. Member for West Bromwich, West (Miss Boothroyd) marched arm in arm with me through the Division Lobby. New Members will not have realised that. Only one of the new trustees was here then.
I am glad that the former Leader of the House, my right hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk (Mr. MacGregor) is going to be a member, and I hope that he will chair it.

Mr. David Winnick: I could be wrong, but I believe that I am right. The right hon. Gentleman, whom we are pleased to see back in his place, said that the pensions position was 40 per cent., whereas it was reduced to 50 per cent. He said that 20 years' service provides half a pension, but he should have said 25 years' service.

Sir Peter Emery: I was trying to make it clear, so that nobody misunderstands, that, at that time, the referral was one sixtieth. We tried to reduce it to one fortieth so that 20 years' service would give a half pension. The Conservative Government refused to accept the motion of the House and came back, in February 1981, with all the Whips on and proceeded to refer back to one sixtieth. In July 1983, that was changed to an accrual of one fiftieth.
I simply remind hon. Members who will serve as trustees of the great and extensive service given by Mr. Morris, who chaired that Committee. He was a most distinguished Labour Member for many years and is now in another place, I am glad to say. His work in defence of hon. Members' pensions was considerable.

Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: Does the right hon. Gentleman know whether the trustees can take evidence? If they can, is he suggesting that he might wish to give evidence?

Sir Peter Emery: I have never considered giving evidence to the trustees. They have prepared a whole host

of work and it rests very much with the Chairman as to how to proceed. As the at least five of the trustees are new Members, and only one knows of the instances of which I am talking, I thought that the matter was extremely relevant. Sadly, I do not see all the hon. Members in the Chamber, but they should be able to see in Hansard the point that I am making about pensions so that they can bear it in mind in any future action.
I hope that the trustees will be successful, as the Labour party at the time was adamant about moving to one fortieth.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Not everybody.

Sir Peter Emery: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman was in the Division Lobby with me. I have the Division list before me—

Madam Speaker: Order. We shall check up afterwards. It is not relevant to this debate.

Sir Peter Emery: Thank you, Madam Speaker. As long as I know that you were with me, that is all that matters.
I hope that the Leader of the House will ensure that the trustees understand this matter and can look into it to see whether the present Government will move in the direction that the Labour party urged on the House 17 years ago. Many new Members, who do not necessarily stand a chance of being in the House for more than 10, 15 or 20 years, need to ensure that their pension rights are better protected than at present. It is not exactly the same as in industry because nothing can be quite as problematical for a long stay than being in politics as a Member of Parliament.
It seemed worth while to raise this matter as we appoint hon. Members as trustees because it is imperative that they bear the matter in mind.

Mr. Eric Forth: I confess that I am disappointed that, given that this is the first opportunity that the House has had to debate this important matter—[HON. MEMBERS: "It is the second opportunity."] It is the first opportunity, because the Leader of the House withdrew the motion in a fit of pique the other night and would not let the House debate the matter.

Mr. Mike Hall: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Earlier this week, we debated the motion and the right hon. Gentleman spoke in that debate. I do not know how he can claim that this is the first opportunity to debate it.

Madam Speaker: Order. The debate was on the second motion.

Mr. Forth: Thank you for that clarification, Madam Speaker. The hon. Gentleman should have established his facts before getting to his feet.
As I was saying, this is the first occasion that we have had to debate this important matter, which relates directly to the interests of every Member of the House.
I am doubly disappointed because, so far, the Leader of the House has not sought to catch your eye, Madam Speaker, to explain to the House why the names that have been suggested for the managing trustees are such as they are. The right hon. Lady might have had a hint from the debate—however truncated it was—on Monday night that there was a certain amount of dissatisfaction about the nature of the names being offered, albeit in connection with a different matter.
Any hon. Members who were then present might recall that I expressed the view that, in these matters perhaps more than any other, it was vital that those to whom we give the trusteeship of our pensions or of the Members' fund should represent the widest possible range of Members of Parliament in terms of background, experience, and so on. I should have thought that that proposition was self-evident, but apparently it is not.
However, even now, the Leader of the House has not done us the courtesy of offering an explanation of the reasoning behind the proposed membership of the managing trustees of the parliamentary contributory pension fund. That is not an unreasonable request.
The matter should be uncontroversial. I should have thought that the Leader of the House would come to the House with some confidence and explain briefly the reasoning behind the nature of the appointments. I would hope that we would all then be satisfied and the matter could be dealt with swiftly but properly. None of that has happened. Instead, we had this and the other related matter brought before us late on Monday night, apparently on the assumption that they would slip through quietly on the nod. We did not even have the opportunity to have the full debate allowed on the Order Paper. I am therefore glad to see that now we have up to an hour and a half to debate each of these matters. That reflects the importance that should be attached to them.
In order to establish my point of reference, I obtained from the Vote Office a copy of the "Parliamentary Contributory Pension Fund Accounts 1995–96". Helpfully, it states in paragraph 11:
The Managing Trustees appointed in accordance with Section 1 of the 1972 Act by Resolution of the House of 22 May 1992 are
and gives the names of the hon. Members in the previous Parliament who were the managing trustees of that important pension fund. Those members included, from the then Opposition, the right hon. Alfred Morris, who was the chairman, the right hon. Gordon Oakes—a senior and highly respected Member of Parliament—and the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Dr. Howells), who is now the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment, but who was at that time a relatively new Member.
The significant point is that the view taken by the then Opposition of the managing trustees was that it was appropriate that there should be a spread of experience, ranging from the hon. Member for Pontypridd to senior Members such as Gordon Oakes and Alfred Morris.
I should mention in passing that the Conservative trustees were none other than Sir Peter Hordern, my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Mrs. Roe), Sir James Spicer and Sir Gerard Vaughan. That gives some idea of the way in which the previous Parliament thought that the

managing trustees should have experience, knowledge and wisdom about matters relating to the House, to Members of Parliament and to their pension fund. That is appropriate and I cannot recall anyone having any difficulty accepting that or any protests—everybody seemed to agree that that was the correct balance for that body of people.
One would have expected that in the present Parliament there would be a similar range of experience among Members to be appointed as managing trustees. You can imagine my shock and my disbelief, Madam Speaker, when I read the list of names that was first suggested to us a couple of nights ago. The Government seemed to have decided that Labour trustees would largely be newly elected Members.

Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: How does the right hon. Gentleman know that a number of these people are not experts on pensions? Has he asked them?

Mr. Forth: That is a fair question.

Mr. Mike Wood: What is the answer?

Mr. Forth: The answer is that I do not know any of them because they have not been in this place long enough.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Incredible.

Mr. Forth: If the hon. Gentleman will do me the courtesy of allowing me to develop my argument—these are only my opening remarks—he will learn that I do not rest my case on such a matter as knowledge of pensions, important although it may be.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Ah!

Mr. Forth: As the hon. Gentleman invites me to, I shall digress a moment—staying in order, I hope.
I readily accept that it is relevant and important that some of the trustees should be Members who know about pensions. If such Members were also newly elected Members, I believe that that would be entirely appropriate, because I do not dispute the fact that a new Member, or even two of them, should serve as trustees to provide that perspective. My difficulty with the proposal is that there are so many of them, to the exclusion of Members with experience and long service in the House.
The hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) obviously knows all those new Members intimately. I respect his judgment in that matter, and if he tells me that one or more of them are pensions experts, I welcome that. I welcome the fact that the trustees include a Member or Members with pension expertise.
The point at issue, however, is whether the trustees have sufficient understanding of the House, of the membership of the House, of the difficulties that may arise as Members serve in the House and, specifically, of the problems that might arise when Members reach pension age and become eligible for the different pension arrangements.

Mr. Winnick: On Monday night, I wondered whether the right hon. Gentleman was simply being obstructive;


I now realise that he genuinely wants the matter to be discussed. I shall not think otherwise unless I have reason to do so.
As I know many hon. Members from both sides of the House who served during the previous Parliament, I would be the last to question their integrity. Is there not a case, however, for saying that fresh blood entering the House—Members who are unlikely to receive pensions in the near future, and not just one or two of them—should be able to consider the matter?
If the majority of the Members who serve as trustees are likely to draw their pension in the next five or 10 years—I am not suggesting that that is the reason for their appointment—some people outside the House might take the view that they have a vested interest. I do not share that view, but there is an argument, which obviously the right hon. Gentleman does not accept, for having as trustees new Members who are unlikely to benefit from pension arrangements for many years.

Mr. Forth: That is a reasonable point of view, which I respect. It was not the view that we took in the previous Parliament or, as those with longer memories may agree, in previous Parliaments that I can recall. That view has not been taken until now. If it were suddenly the view of the House, that would be another matter.
I concede, as I did to the hon. Member for Workington, that there should be a balance of experience of trustees, and the point that the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) makes has some validity. I cannot go as far as he wants me to go and say that there should be a majority. I readily concede the principle that he has enunciated—the need to balance possible self-interest in the approach of pension age with distance from pension age.
I am arguing for some balance and breadth of representation among the trustees. From the beginning, I have believed that the names suggested by the Government go too much in one direction. As I have said, I regret that I do not know those individuals personally—I hope to get to know them well in the coming years if I am spared to survive in this place beyond another election or two. I am sure that some of those hon. Members will make a very valuable contribution—in terms of their expertise in pensions, the fresh views that they may bring to these matters or their distance from their pension entitlements. I readily concede those points.
However, the point at issue is whether the trustees should contain a breadth of representation. I hope that it is not too late to ask the Leader of the House to reconsider the matter and provide a better range of representation. I have no wish to obstruct this process: it is very much in my interests, and in the interests of all hon. Members, that the trustees should exist and function properly. That is even more important for the trustees of the Members' fund, which we are to discuss next.
I have no desire to be obstructive, but I have a strong wish to see the trustees constituted properly. I ask the Leader of the House—I hope reasonably—to re-examine the matter very quickly.

The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mrs. Ann Taylor): I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. On Tuesday night, I offered him the chance to discuss the matter

further. I have received no representations about the issue—although one of his hon. Friends spoke to me about it. As I explained to him, those who serve as trustees are volunteers: we cannot conscript people to do such work. We have selected to serve as trustees people with some relevant experience. My hon. Friends the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) and for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) have made significant points in that regard.
When the trustees are appointed, I do not think that there will be any barrier to an expansion in numbers if it is felt that extra experience is needed. The House could ask other hon. Members whether they wished to serve. However, the Government do not conscript people to serve as trustees if they are not willing to do so. I do not think that that would be a useful way of doing things. I believe that the hon. Members chosen to serve have a great deal of experience between them and I have confidence in them. However, if other experience is needed, I do not have a closed mind to suggesting that the membership should be altered in the future.

Mr. Forth: I am grateful to the right hon. Lady for that response, but I am a little disconcerted—I think that that is the right word. I shall not make any further inquiries about the matter and I accept the right hon. Lady's explanation at face value. However, I am surprised that apparently it was not possible to find, from more than 400 Labour Members of Parliament, hon. Members with more experience to serve as trustees.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: How does the right hon. Member know? He does not know what their experience is.

Mr. Forth: The hon. Gentleman raises the same issue from a sedentary position. I am talking about length of experience in the House, not pension experience. I am very surprised that, from more than 400 Labour Members—I concede that a number are occupied with Government responsibilities—it was apparently difficult to find hon. Members who entered the House in 1992, 1987 or whenever to serve as trustees.

Mrs. Ann Taylor: I reinforce the point that the right hon. Gentleman has made. The vast majority of Labour Members with the experience of the kind to which he refers are either members of the Government—it would not be appropriate for Ministers to serve on the body—or fulfilling other very responsible roles on Committees of the House. I think that he would be somewhat disconcerted if we suggested that new Members should assume the chairmanship of Select Committees in order to free more experienced Members for this kind of work.
We cannot force people to do such work; we rely on volunteers. I have said that if other types of experience are considered necessary in the future, we will be happy to consider the proposal, but, at present, there are no hon. Members with the kind of experience that the right hon. Gentleman describes who are willing to serve as trustees.

Mr. Forth: I am grateful to the right hon. Lady. I am tempted, but I shall resist the temptation, to get into a side debate about whether new Members should be Chairmen of Select Committees. In that case, the freshness of view argument might indeed be relevant. It is an interesting


question whether old lags should always be Chairmen of Select Committees. We might return to it on another occasion.

Mr. Michael Fabricant: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) implied that there was a corollary: that new Members might have experience in pensions? Having just referred to the "Vacher Dod" guide, I see that one of the new Members is an economics lecturer, another is a general practitioner and a third was a translator before coming to the House. They offer nothing to the Committee, other than newness and freshness—no experience in the running of pensions or the organisation of the House. No doubt they will contribute later to the debate on modernisation of the House, and argue how sensible it would be to introduce clapping.

Mr. Forth: I am confused. I hope that, as a result of my hon. Friend's intervention, the hon. Member for Workington will seek to catch your eye, Madam Speaker, and explain why, with his intimate knowledge of his colleagues, he thinks that they have pensions experience that would be useful to the trustees. He suggested strongly that they had such experience. My hon. Friend suggests, from the information available to him, that that may be in doubt. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will put our minds at rest—

Mr. Campbell-Savours: The right hon. Gentleman does not know whether my hon. Friends were trustees. That would not be in the record to which the hon. Member for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant) referred. As for the medical practitioner, there is a requirement that a medical practitioner should be a trustee. The fund may have to deal with people like me, who may at some stage want ill-health pensions.

Mr. Forth: I have no difficulty with any of that. If, as I said at the outset, we had been told briefly but carefully the rationale behind the names proposed, none of this discussion would have been necessary. If, for example, it had been explained that one of the trustees must be a general practitioner, that would have been sufficient. If it had been demonstrated that an hon. Member had relevant pensions experience, that might have been appropriate. If we could have found someone who was a new Member and a GP with pensions experience, we could have had the whole lot rolled into one.
It would have been helpful if, as a matter of public record, the House had been given such an explanation, but that explanation has still not been forthcoming. I am grateful to the Leader of the House for the information that it has apparently proved difficult—nay, impossible—to find Labour Members with the range of experience that I suggested was necessary.
I shall reflect on that. It was, and still is, in my mind to seek to divide the House on the matter, such is my strength of feeling about it. I sense that some of my hon. Friends want to make their contribution, and I shall reflect on what the Leader of the House said before making up my mind.
I hope that I have made my views clear, and that I have persuaded hon. Members present that the matter is important. At the very least, we now have a clearer view from the Leader of the House of the background and the possibilities that lie ahead of us.

Mr. Gerald Howarth: I have promised to help to secure the re-election of Gerry Malone as the hon. Member for Winchester and I am already late for that appointment. That being so, I shall not delay the House for long, but an important matter is before us.
I am glad that the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) intervened because he recognised, as a Labour Member, that the points made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) on Monday night and by my right hon. Friend the Member for East Devon (Sir P. Emery) tonight show that we, the Opposition, are not seeking to filibuster to delay Government business. After all, the next debate will focus on the modernisation of the House, which is a matter of concern to all hon. Members.
As my right hon. Friends have said, however, we are much concerned about the compositions of Committees. Like my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst, I felt on Monday, in my anger, that we were faced with another example of the contempt with which the Government regard the House.
I had reason to take that view because I have raised on the Floor of the House the membership of the Select Committee on Standards and Privileges, of which the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) is a distinguished member. I felt it wrong that a Committee dealing with matters relating to past events and going much to the heart of Members' activities should be in the hands of those who had no experience of the House. It was not a particularly partisan point, but I would not claim to be completely green on that issue.
The issue arose to even greater extent when nominations as trustees for the pension fund appeared on the Order Paper to be rushed through on Monday night. Not one Government nominee had served in the House before May. [Interruption.] I am sorry, the hon. Member for Sherwood (Mr. Tipping) had served for one Parliament. However, none of the Government Members nominated as trustees of the Members' fund has served in a previous Parliament. I realise, of course, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that we are debating not the Members' fund but the contributory pension fund. I accept that one Labour nominee has served in a previous Parliament.
I am grateful to the Leader of the House for acknowledging that we had a brief conversation yesterday. I am grateful also to her for taking me into her confidence. I have breached that confidence because she raised the matter from the Dispatch Box. She said that those who appoint Members to act as trustees of the funds have had difficulty in persuading Labour Members, especially right hon. Members, to serve.
I find it extraordinary that a party that enjoys the largest representation in the House since the second world war cannot find within its ranks senior Members who have the time that is necessary to devote to such important work.
We are talking about what used to be called House of Commons matters in the old days, not party political matters. These are matters that unite Members across the


board, and they relate to the difficulties of leading the life of a Member, which involves balancing constituency obligations with House obligations and balancing commitments to the political process with the need to devote time to the family. These matters serve to bring Members together rather than to divide them. There is a need also to deal with financial matters.
Since I have been in this place, it has seemed to me that it has been agreed policy that matters such as those before us would be dealt with by the great and the good. I fear that there is now an absence of the great when we read the list of Labour nominees. I make no judgment on whether the new Members are good—those who are appearing for the first time—but they are not great, because they have not served in the House previously.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: I recall hearing these arguments before. They are arguments that the previous Government used against the then Opposition Front Bench. They said that because Labour had not been in government for nearly 18 years we did not have the experience to go into government. There is a fine team of Ministers on the Treasury Bench that is competently running the affairs of the United Kingdom, and most of its members have had no previous ministerial responsibility. They have acquired their competence in a matter of months. What is the hon. Gentleman going on about? I think that he completely misunderstands what the debate is about.

Mr. Howarth: That is unbelievably rich coming from the hon. Gentleman. Surely he has been reading the papers lately. He must have seen the Government's catalogue of incompetence, which reached a pinnacle this week—I am sure that there will be many more pinnacles to conquer in the coming weeks—with the nonsense about sponsorship by tobacco companies. I shall not pursue that matter, Mr. Deputy Speaker, or you will stop me.
The Conservatives' argument in government that there was a lack of experience in the Labour party has, sadly, been fully confirmed since the new Government assumed office. The hon. Gentleman invites me to take a partisan approach when I was trying to be as non-partisan as possible. He always tries to tempt me, whether in the Chamber or the Tea Room, but he should resist or we shall stray from what I hope is common ground.
As my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst said, it is not that we believe that Labour nominees lack the competence to deal with pension matters, but they have no range of experience. They may provide fresh blood, but, apart from the hon. Member for Sherwood, who has served one term, there is no one such as the hon. Member for Workington, who has served for a number of terms and understands how the House works.
On a House of Commons matter, it is important to understand how the House works, and one way in which Members understand how the House works and the pressure faced by them is by virtue by their length of service. Therefore, I do not cast aspersions on those hon. Members who have been appointed.
However, I return to my astonishment that, within the ranks of the 400 Labour Members, neither the hon. Member for Workington nor the hon. Member for Walsall, North could be persuaded to serve as trustees. The hon. Member for Walsall, North does sterling service

with me on the Select Committee on Home Affairs, but I dare say that he could still find a slot in his diary to help out as a trustee.

Mr. Winnick: rose—

Mr. Howarth: Is the hon. Gentleman volunteering?

Mr. Winnick: I am not volunteering. The hon. Gentleman refers to Labour Back Benchers with many years of experience. Leaving my position aside, is it not of interest that all those Labour Members have various positions of responsibility, including—I do not wish to embarrass him—my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon), who is chairing an important Committee. My hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) is a member of that Committee and of another Committee which carries some responsibility.
Unfortunately, I was not in the Chamber when the hon. Gentleman started his speech, but I know that he understands some of my arguments. Unless he can show that those senior Labour Members to whom he refers are not pulling their weight in Committee and in the Chamber—we know the work undertaken by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner)—he is weakening his case.

Mr. Howarth: I am flattered that the hon. Gentleman should consider me qualified to appoint senior Labour Members of the great and the good. That is not my duty and I think that he would regard it as presumptuous of me were I so to do. However, the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike) is in his place. I am sure that he has time to spare. He joined the House at the same time as I did in 1983. He and I find time to share holy communion from time to time and I am sure that he could be persuaded to serve on behalf of the House.

Mr. Peter L. Pike: I was a trustee of two pension funds before I became a Member of the House. I have every confidence in those Labour Members who have been appointed to represent us. I am serving on the Modernisation Committee and the Ecclesiastical Committee, and I shall serve on the Select Committee on Deregulation, probably as Chairman. Therefore, I have plenty of work to do without being trustee of the fund.

Mr. Howarth: As those with plenty to do always have time to do a little more, I think that we have a nomination from the hon. Member for Burnley. Given his qualification as a previous trustee of two pension funds, he is ideally qualified. We are making progress.
In contrast with the situation in which the Labour party finds itself, apparently having too many Members committed in other places, the Conservative party has 165 hon. Members, the lowest number for many a long year, but, despite my right hon. and hon. Friends' responsibilities in the House as her Majesty's loyal Opposition, we have nominated my right hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk (Mr. MacGregor), who has a distinguished record of service in government and as


Leader of the House and understands how the House works—a volunteer, not a press-ganged man—and my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, West (Mr. Butterfill), who is not in the Chamber today but is also a Conservative appointee, willingly serving.
My right hon. Friend and my hon. Friend have appropriate experience. My hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, West is the adviser to the British Insurance and Investment Brokers' Association, and so has relevant experience, and my right hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk, is a non-executive director of London and Manchester, dealing with pensions.
The Opposition have discharged their responsibility to the House to nominate as trustees those with relevant experience who can bring something to the corporate body of hon. Members who need to ensure that their pension fund is in safe hands.
I do not cast aspersions on Labour Members, but we do not know them.

Mr. Andrew Stunell: The hon. Gentleman said that this is a non-partisan issue, without party divisions, but has he not argued that there will be Conservative Members on it with satisfactory credentials? When the matter was debated on Monday, aspersions were clearly cast on the nomination of the Liberal Democrats, who is an hon. Member with wide industrial and commercial experience who is entirely suited to the membership of the body. The trustees represent a variety of ages, politics and experiences who, taken together, form a sound body. Does the hon. Gentleman not agree?

Mr. Howarth: Frankly, that is garbage. I apologise to the hon. Gentleman. That is simply not true. The hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) was chief economist at Shell. I do not dispute that he has something to offer from outside, but he has no knowledge of the workings of the House. He has six months' experience of being a Member, so he has no breadth of experience of the difficulties that hon. Members face.

Ms Joan Walley: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Howarth: I shall give way provided that the hon. Lady does not accuse me of prolonging the debate.

Ms Walley: If the hon. Gentleman is so concerned about the proceedings of the House, would it not be better if we could make some progress and get on to the debate on how we run the place?

Mr. Howarth: The hon. Lady makes a fair point. I promised that I would not speak for too long, so I shall begin to wind up my remarks because the next debate is on an important matter.
I hope that my right hon. Friends and I have made the point. We do not wish to attack the external credentials of the Labour nominees, but it is a mistake for the House to appoint as trustees too many hon. Members who do not have the relevant experience of this place. That is the issue about which we feel strongly. We shall have to decide whether to divide the House.

The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mrs. Ann Taylor): I have been in the House longer than anyone who has spoken in the debate, with the exception of the right hon. Member for East Devon (Sir P. Emery), who has taken a keen interest in this matter for a long time. He implied that previous committees of the great and the good had perhaps not done as good a job as some of those who advocate that more of the great and the good should be trustees might think.
On Monday night, I offered to listen to suggestions from any hon. Member who was concerned about this issue, but only one raised the matter with me. After listening to contributions from Conservative Members, I think that we will have an experienced group of trustees. It will comprise Opposition Members, some new blood and at least one hon. Member with experience of one Parliament. Overall, it will be a pretty balanced group in which we can have confidence.
Conservative Members have not quite decided whether they are or are not attacking the individuals who have been nominated. They have not made their case by arguing that some of the Labour nominees are too inexperienced. By definition, this is not a party political activity. If the trustees include new Members, Members with some experience, Members with great experience, people with knowledge of the pensions industry and GPS with useful experience, we will have a group in which I have more confidence than perhaps I would have had, if we had not had the debate. We have considered the many aspects that the trustees will have to cover and the qualities that they should have.
I have no concerns about the make-up of the trustees. Hon. Members who want to serve are doing us all a service. Instead of their being pilloried, the House should be grateful that they are willing to serve on our behalf.

Question put and agreed to.

Ordered,
That Mr. John Butterfill, Dr Vincent Cable, Mr. Barry Gardiner, Mr. John MacGregor, Dr Nick Palmer, Dr Howard Stoate, Ms Gisela Stuart and Paddy Tipping be appointed Managing Trustees of the Parliamentary Contributory Pension Fund in pursuance of Section 1 of the Parliamentary and other Pensions Act 1987.

HOUSE OF COMMONS MEMBERS' FUND

Ordered,
That Mr. John Butterfill, Dr. Vincent Cable, Mr. Barry Gardiner, Dr. Nick Palmer, Dr. Howard Stoate and Ms Gisela Stuart be appointed Managing Trustees of the House of Commons Members' Fund in pursuance of Section 2 of the House of Commons Members' Fund Act 1939.—[Mr. McFall.]

Modernisation of the House

The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mrs. Ann Taylor): I beg to move,
That this House approves the First Report of the Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons: The Legislative Process (HC 190).
I am pleased that we have now come to the debate on this important topic. Many hon. Members are pleased that the Select Committee on Modernisation has produced a report so quickly. Soon after the general election, in the debates on the Gracious Speech and in subsequent debates, hon. Members showed that there is a great desire for modernisation. What struck many of us was that not just new Members are interested in changing our procedures, but many experienced hon. Members who have been in the House for some time want better procedures so that their time can be put to better use.
It becomes obvious to hon. Members who have been in the House for some time that some debates are not as fruitful, productive and enlightening as they could be, although I draw no conclusions from the previous debate. Some hon. Members may feel that that hour could have been better spent, and that one of the lessons to be learned is that if all hon. Members did their homework before they came into the Chamber, the debates would be of a better quality, although that aspect is not yet being considered by the Committee.
At the general election, the Labour party promised to put the issue of the modernisation of the House of Commons on the agenda, and to establish a Select Committee to examine the topic. We are discussing the Committee's first report and its progress to date. I hope that the debate and the responses of hon. Members by letter or through discussions will enable the Committee to set priorities for its future work. We intend to consider the parliamentary year and the parliamentary week, the conduct of debate in the Chamber and the scrutiny of European legislation.
I shall begin by referring to the report and its specific recommendations. I hope that our proposals and the reasons for them are clear from the report, which was agreed unanimously. When the Committee was first established and the names of its members were published, there was some doubt as to whether it could proceed on the basis of unanimity, but we worked extremely well as a Committee. I pay tribute to members of the Committee for their appreciation of the mood for change that has been evident in the House.
To some people, any discussion of the procedures of the House may seem dry and boring. Perhaps that is inevitable. If the changes that the Committee has suggested could be made to work—which could happen only with the good will of all hon. Members—we would make better use of parliamentary time, and the scrutiny of Bills would be more appropriate. The procedure would be more flexible, so that the treatment of each Bill would depend on what was appropriate for that legislation.
The Committee is grateful for the comments of the Chairmen's Panel. We appreciate the fact that it considered the report quickly, and its response has been very positive. The points that it has raised and the items that it wants us to examine in further detail can usefully be discussed. We are grateful for its constructive comments.
The Committee dealt with a range of issues. We discussed the possibility of programming certain Bills to make better use of the time available, and to ensure that the different parts of a Bill are discussed appropriately. We have come up with suggestions for greater flexibility, particularly in Standing Committees. For example, the new clause procedure could be used when discussing every part of the Bill. Instead of discussing all the amendments and then having a clause stand part of the debate at the end, we could, in Committee, have a clause stand part debate at the beginning, and then move on to consider amendments once the Committee had decided to accept the principle of the clause. That would allow members of the Committee to discuss the clause, and amendments to it, more constructively, which would benefit everyone.

Sir Peter Emery: According to paragraph 16 of the Chairmen's Panel report on the Modernisation Committee's proposals concerning the legislative process, the panel's members
see some difficulty in adapting to this method of proceeding.
We would be wise to consider that with some care. I do not want to raise hopes that we are going to do something until we are certain about it.

Mrs. Taylor: I have discussed the matter with the Chairman of Ways and Means. I understand that the Chairmen's Panel would like an experiment to be carried out—not just in one or two Standing Committees; a more widespread experiment. That would allow the changes to be experienced in different sets of circumstances. Perhaps we were not being adventurous enough for the Chairmen's Panel. There is, however, a constructive point to be made: if we are to conduct experiments, they must be sufficiently extensive for us to learn something from them. 1 do not think that I am breaking any confidences when I say that, when I spoke to the Chairman of Ways and Means, I undertook to consider that recommendation and to discuss it further, bearing the Panel's views in mind. I thought that those views showed a constructive approach to our suggestions.
Much of what the Modernisation Committee says suggests that we should use the existing procedures of the House in a more imaginative way than we sometimes do. I think that many hon. Members—including, perhaps, some members of the Committee—were struck by the flexibility that already exists in our proceedings. We often do not take advantage of that flexibility, using routine procedures as a matter of course. The diagram at the back of the Committee's report is very illuminating. There is much that we can do to improve the position if there is good will throughout the House. When we want change, we should make that change on an experimental basis. We should not rush to presume that the Committee has uncovered every detail of the change that is required—and, certainly, the Committee did not approach its work in that way. For the Government's part, I submitted a memorandum to the Committee, which has been published. We welcomed the report, and will of course co-operate in trying to ensure that the proposed changes work in practice.
The section on draft Bills, which was in the memorandum, has found general favour. We have also said that we will introduce—this year, I hope—seven draft Bills, and I hope that it will be possible for at least some


of them to be considered by the departmental Select Committees with the aim of improving decision making and giving Back Benchers a more constructive role. I am pleased to say that the Select Committee on Social Security—which is chaired by a Liberal Democrat—has already agreed that, when the draft Bill on pension sharing is ready, it will conduct an investigation, and try to ensure that the Bill's proposals are workable. I believe that, had we adopted a similar approach when, for example, the Child Support Agency was introduced, we would not have our present problems.
Draft Bills can be used to deal with other problems that arise from time to time. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will shortly publish a draft Bill dealing with rapid-draw lotteries, which are causing concern to many people but on which it will take time to legislate. A draft Bill will enable others to see what proposals are ready, and we can legislate when we find a slot. Draft legislation can play a constructive role, and, when it deals with significant issues such as pension sharing, it will benefit everyone if a Select Committee is involved. There is agreement on that now.
It is possible that not all the Committee's recommendations can be tried out this year. It may not be possible to try out enough of them to conduct a proper experiment. For instance, I cannot at this stage mention a suitable Bill for a rollover experiment. Perhaps, over the next few months, an issue will emerge to which the Government will want to respond—or will be under pressure from the Opposition to respond—and legislation will be required, to be dealt with by a Special Standing Committee. On that basis, we might want to recommend such a Bill for rollover: I do not rule that out. The Government, however, will not manufacture such a Bill simply to test the procedure. We should keep an open mind, and use the suggestions in the Committee's report as appropriate.
This is an unusual year. It is the first year of a new Parliament, and the first year of any new Parliament generally involves a heavy legislative programme. That was the case under earlier Conservative Governments, and the legislative programme of a new Government who have been out of office for 18 years is particularly heavy in the first year. It may not be possible to assess the full impact of the proposed changes, because they cannot be assessed against the background of the weight of business in a normal year. I hope, however, that we can test as many of the new proposals as possible, and that most of them—perhaps with minor modifications—will prove useful to the House.
Some of the changes recommended by the Modernisation Committee have already been implemented. Let me give some examples, which may seem minor to those outside the House but have, I think, been helpful to Members of Parliament. One of the first pressures that we experienced came from new Members who were appalled at the congestion in the Lobbies. We examined the problem urgently, and suggested that a third desk should be used. That alleviated—but did not solve—the problem of congestion at voting times. After the Committee made that recommendation, the House implemented it swiftly; we were grateful for that.
The Committee will consider other possible changes in voting procedure in the new Session, and will take evidence about the possibility of electronic voting. It has not been decided to adopt such a system yet. I think that one point on which all members of the Committee are agreed is that, whatever changes are made, voting should take place either in the Chamber or in the Lobbies—in the vicinity of the Chamber, rather than remote from it. The Committee is still considering the matter, however, and is seeking extra evidence.
We also—you, Madam Speaker, are aware of this as much as anyone—made recommendations on changing the Order Paper, and you authorised the introduction of the new Order Paper after the summer recess. The response was much more significant than I had thought it would be—Members seemed really to welcome the change. Members of the press in particular were somewhat puzzled by the fact that they could now understand what was going to happen later in the day.
It may be possible to make even more improvements to the Order Paper and to build on what we have done so far. One or two suggestions have been made and if hon. Members have any other ideas we will, of course, consider them. One that has been mentioned to me is to incorporate into the Order Paper once a week the times and nature of Select Committee sittings when evidence is being taken, so that Members have further warning of what is happening. Sometimes, they do not realise until the morning that such a sitting is taking place and, by that time, they have other commitments.
Another matter that may seem technical and dry, but which is important, is the explanatory memorandum. Some legislation has already gone through the House and new Members in particular may have been somewhat puzzled by some of the information that accompanies a Bill. The so-called explanatory material is often as difficult to comprehend as the Bill. It can often be extremely technical and it does not always give a full picture of exactly what the Bill does. Often it uses the same technical language as the Bill. That problem has caused concern for many years. Committee members shared my concern about that, as did the Parliamentary Counsel Office, which is responsible for the drafting of Bills and of explanatory memorandums.
Ministers have often provided at least notes on clauses. Sometimes, those are informative; sometimes they too simply echo the clauses to Committees. That does not seem to take us much further forward. What is required is one document that sets out in non-technical terms the key points that are needed to grasp what a Bill does and how it will do it. We suggest that there should be changes on the part of Government when a Bill is presented. The First Parliamentary Counsel has been working to provide a new document, which might be called "The Explanatory Notes to a Bill", and would replace the existing explanatory memorandum and notes on clauses. To have such a document published for the assistance of Members would be a significant step forward and, of course, it could be made more widely available—including, I would hope, on the internet.
The only sensible way in which to judge the value of this proposal is to consider examples, so I am going to write to each member of the Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons, setting out some of the detailed proposals, including an example or two of what a new set of explanatory notes could look


like. I shall ensure that those examples are placed in the Library, so that other Members can see them and comment. Then the Committee might wish to discuss what advice it wants to give to the Government in terms of proceeding along those lines. It would be helpful if we informed Members in a better way exactly what the purpose and contents of Bills are.
All those things are not exactly earth shattering. Some people would say that we would not have had any changes had they been so, but they mark real progress and there is certainly much more to do. Some people said a few months ago, "When will you modernise Parliament?", as if modernisation were one event. None of us on the Committee thought of modernisation as one event. It is a process and we have started well on it, but there is much more work to come.

Ms Joan Walley: May I draw to my right hon. Friend's attention how pleased I am with the progress in respect of legislation? That is absolutely crucial, but a further aspect concerns me as well, which I hope the Committee will have an opportunity to move on to because it is important, too. It is how Parliament has proper scrutiny through Select Committees of what the Government are doing. May I bring to her attention the work and recommendations of the Select Committee on Trade and Industry, of which I am a current member and on which I have sat previously? Recommendations in its report relate to the Crown jewels procedure and to whether we should have a procedure for parliamentary investigations instigated by the House or by Select Committees. In certain circumstances, such a parliamentary investigation could perhaps have more resources than Select Committees currently have for particular inquiries. I urge her to consider that issue, too, when we have got through this legislative programme for improving our procedures.

Mrs. Taylor: I know that my hon. Friend has done much work on Select Committees and I value her expertise. I cannot promise that we will recommend the changes that she suggests, but we will certainly come on to the work of Select Committees. All Members at that stage will have an opportunity to feed in their ideas and she will be able to expand on hers at that time.
On the future work of the Select Committee, let me remind Members of the work that we are doing immediately and in the near future. We are doing further work on the feasibility and desirability of electronic voting, and we are considering the way in which the parliamentary year, parliamentary week and parliamentary day are scheduled. We have had a couple of interesting and open discussions, although no conclusions have been drawn. We are going to consider the conduct of debate in the House and the scrutiny of European legislation. All are areas of concern to many Members. We received many representations on them when the Committee was first established.
I should be happy to hear more from Members this evening about what their priorities are, but I know that there are conflicts in the views of different Members from different parts of the country or in different groups. All Members should appreciate that there are no easy solutions to these problems.
Following the Jopling changes, surveys were done and the information that we have already from Members shows us that, in some respects, there is an agreed pattern

of what a parliamentary week should be. Most Members believe that Parliament should sit from Monday lunch time to Thursday tea time. Many think that there should be no very late nights, although London Members would define late nights differently from Select Committee members, as would northern Members.
There is concern about the fact that Parliament sits so much when schools are on holiday and it is half term. There are demands for constituency weeks, for early notices of the recess, for no diminution in the power of Back Benchers and for the Government not to use guillotines, yet there is also a requirement for Government to get their legislation through. It is clear that all those objectives are not compatible. Different Members legitimately have different priorities. For some Members, the priority is to be in this Chamber. For others, it is to serve on a Select Committee. Some will specialise in European legislation or regional advocacy and others will want to spend a lot of time representing the interests of their constituents, perhaps at constituency level.
It is impossible to please everyone, but we are trying to devise a system that will allow all 659 Members to undertake their jobs in their individual way—in the way that they think is most appropriate to their constituents. That is the difficulty with which we wrestle. Every hon. Member carries out their job in a different way, according to what they think is appropriate for their constituency. We have to provide a framework to enable them to do that.

Mr. Christopher Gill: The right hon. Lady was describing the different ways in which Members of Parliament approach their job. Will she accept that, in the circumstances that she has described, it would be impossible to lay out a job description for Members of Parliament? Will she resist the calls that I understand are being made to produce such a document?

Mrs. Taylor: I think that our constituents would be surprised to learn that there is no job description for Members of Parliament. The problem is that one runs into significant difficulties as soon as one attempts to write such a document. That is why I acknowledge that all Members of Parliament do their considerable job in very different ways. The priorities I have expressed, such as the Chamber, Select Committees and constituency work, are all legitimate priorities. I suspect that all hon. Members would, or at least should, acknowledge that they have to cover all those points at some stage during their parliamentary life.
We need a framework to allow Members of Parliament to do their job in the way that they each think fit. At the same time, we have to deliver good government, and that is a tall order. We have to ensure that we satisfy everybody and that everybody can undertake their work as they wish.
From the responses we have had it is easy to see how different the priorities are. Some people ask for more time for Adjournment debates, some are demanding more morning sittings and some object to any morning sittings at all because they want to get on with their constituency work. We have had demands for early evening finishes or for Committees to sit in the evening. We have had objections to such proposals from Members with constituencies in different parts of the country; they take a different view. The Committee will have to take on board all those different views.
The Committee is aware that there is consensus for change, but we also know that there is not yet consensus about what that change should be. It is important that the Committee should formulate ideas in the context of keeping in touch with hon. Members. That is why we will continue to encourage hon. Members to feed in information and to keep in touch with members of the Committee.
We have had many suggestions about the Chamber that I know will interest you, Madam Speaker, and your Deputy Speakers and Chairmen. There have been suggestions that Question Time should be in the morning rather than the afternoon and that the House should rise at 7 o'clock—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] There have been suggestions that the House should never sit on Fridays and that we should use Tuesday and Thursday mornings for Committees of the whole House.
All those suggestions have some logic and my hon. Friends are saying "Hear, hear." to some of them. If we did all of them, we would get no business through at all, especially if we had constituency weeks as well. [Interruption.] The right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) approves of the idea of us getting no business through. He has already proved today that he is not a moderniser so I would expect nothing less from him.

Mr. Eric Forth: indicated assent.

Mrs. Taylor: I am glad to have that confirmed.
During the next few weeks, we will be discussing the conduct of debates in the House. That is necessary because there have been so many changes in attitude to debate over the years and because some of the normal courtesies of the House seem to have gone out of the window. We saw that yesterday during the introduction of the new Member with some of the most appalling scenes I have seen in the House for some time.
When the new Members first arrived in the House they looked for quick solutions such as suggesting that every speech should be limited to 10 minutes. There have been suggestions that Privy Counsellors should not be given precedence in debate. There have been discussions about wigs, top hats and about referring to Members by name rather than by constituency. We have reached no decisions on those matters and our main concern will be to ensure that the House functions properly and that good use is made of the time of hon. Members.
The Select Committee has made a good start on the process of change, but it is a process. I hope that the House will support the report and assist the Committee in its future work.

Mrs. Gillian Shephard: As the Leader of the House has pointed out, the report has been agreed unanimously by the Committee and we all welcome that. I know that my hon. Friends the Members for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) and for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) have been in touch with her to explain that they had engagements which predated their membership of the Committee and that that was why they could not be here today.
The Opposition welcome the Committee's recognition, in examining proposals for change, of the principles laid down by a distinguished predecessor of the right hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor), my right hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk (Mr. MacGregor). In his evidence to the Jopling Committee, he said:
the position of Government must not be undermined and the Government of the day must still be able to get its business;
the Opposition must have adequate opportunity to oppose and its legitimate rights must be sustained;
back benchers must have adequate scope to raise matters of concern to them or their constituents, but a balance has to be struck between unlimited freedom for back benchers and the efficient operating of Parliament as a law-making body.
The Leader of the House has illustrated the difficulty of balancing competing claims. She has given examples of the type of demands that are made of the process of modernisation. The Committee's report reflects the principles laid down by my right hon. Friend.
What will he particularly helpful is the insistence that the various options for change should be tried out on an experimental basis and the view that comments from hon. Members and others will be an important part of any change. It has been interesting to receive comments from new Members and to set those alongside the views of more seasoned members of the Committee and others. I believe that the report is a little optimistic in the way that it thinks we can deal with the red-in-tooth-and-claw nature of political activity in the House. However, the experimental approach adopted will at least demonstrate those areas where easier progress can be made.
The Opposition's view has been guided consistently by the conviction that Parliament—the House of Commons and the other place—is one of the principal and foremost institutions of the British constitution. That constitution is rooted in the notion that Parliament is sovereign and that the laws of our land can be made and repealed only by Acts of that Parliament. It is a matter of regret that the Government, in their ill-thought-out dash for votes in Scotland and Wales, have not so far allowed sufficient time for consideration of the implications for Parliament and for our constitution of the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly.
I believe that the Government's plans for the incorporation of the European convention on human rights into British law call into question the sovereignty of Parliament. In contrast, our attitude to reform has always been that change to one of the principle pillars of our constitution should be evolutionary. So far, thankfully, that has been the Modernisation Committee's approach. We are not opposed to sensible examination of the way in which Parliament works. Indeed, it has been under Conservative Governments that some of the most far-reaching and beneficial constitutional reforms have been introduced—notably, the Jopling reforms on which the Committee has built its work.

Mr. Forth: My right hon. Friend has expressed her support for the report, but does she share my unease about the analysis in paragraph 8? It says:
The Committee stage of a Bill, which is meant to be the occasion when the details of the legislation are scrutinised, has often tended to be devoted to political partisan debate rather than constructive and systematic scrutiny.
Does my right hon. Friend share my problem with that, which is that that analysis, which is fairly accurate, is based on the experience of the last few Parliaments,


when the Labour party was in opposition? Does she share my regret that we have not had an opportunity to see how the new parliamentary regime works with we Conservatives in opposition, where we might oppose more effectively? Does she therefore share my unease at the proposals emerging from the one-sided analysis?

Mrs. Shephard: As I said, I think that the report is a little optimistic in the way in which it tends to ignore the political nature of activities in the House, which, after all, is one of the points of its existence. However, as we do not intend to be in opposition for very long, my right hon. Friend's anxiety is perhaps ill-founded and needless.
The previous Government produced a balanced package of improvements to parliamentary procedure in response to the Jopling report. They introduced more practical working hours, constituency Fridays, private Members' business on Wednesday mornings, more notice of business and recess dates, more voluntary timetabling of Bills and opportunities for the whole House to debate Select Committee reports.
I was most interested in what the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms Walley) said about Select Committees. This is absolutely in parenthesis, but I, too, have my concerns—having been hauled up before Select Committees in various ministerial guises—about the ways in which some Select Committees go. I shall take careful note of the examples that she has drawn to the attention of the House to see what lessons can be learned when the Modernisation Committee considers Select Committees.

Ms Walley: It is crucial that Select Committees play an important part in what goes on. I believe that the Environment Sub-Committee—a new Select Committee which has been set up since the election—along with the Public Accounts Committee, provided that it has adequate resources, could make important progress.

Mrs. Shephard: As I said, I am very interested in what the hon. Lady says. May I ask the Leader of the House whether we are to consider Select Committees eventually? There will be varied experiences among the Committee's members—hon. Members who have served on Committees, chaired Committees and been grilled by them. The examples quoted by the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North are useful. There should be an opportunity to consider things in depth. Although I am not being asked to say all this, I do not think that Select Committees should be asked to respond instantly to the political flavour of the moment. Their work ought to be more on-going, but that has not always been so.

Mrs. Ann Taylor: The right hon. Lady asked about the modernisation of Select Committees. We shall, of course, have to decide that in due course. I hope that we will get around to considering Select Committees, but I do not regard it as an immediate priority—not least because I think that most people believe that Select Committees work quite well.

Mrs. Shephard: The right hon. Lady heard what her hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North said. Of course we have a great deal of work in front of us in any case before we get to Select Committees.
I was going through what the previous Government did in response to the Jopling report. It is worth mentioning that the Chairman of Ways and Means conveyed to the

Modernisation Committee his view that the Jopling reforms have resulted in a marked improvement in the way in which business has been conducted in the House in recent years.
The Chairman of Ways and Means pointed out some of the strengths of the present system, such as the appointment of a separate Committee for each Bill, the fact that the process of detailed consideration and confrontation is carried out in public and the tradition of impartial chairmanship. He also pointed out that many of the existing flexibilities were not used fully. That is a really important point: it was flagged up by the Leader of the House and I hope that the Modernisation Committee will return to it. It is ludicrous that we are not using all the opportunities available to us, while trying to find new ones. I know that we shall return to that matter.
Some of the Committee's discussions have illustrated the inherent difficulties of introducing any change at all. The Government of the day—and certainly Ministers of any party—perceive any change as a threat to their ability to get legislation through. Opposition parties in turn are suspicious that any change might prejudice their ability either to criticise or to oppose. Some hon. Members—mostly, although not exclusively, the newer ones—have been at pains to point out the way in which parliamentary procedure is not always perceived flatteringly in the outside world. We have, however, all been able to agree that some practical change is possible. The fact that all changes will be introduced on an experimental basis is welcome.
The Modernisation Committee has sought to increase consultation with Members and the House as a whole before Bills are introduced, to allow time for Members to receive representations from interested parties, and to change procedures and, it must be said, the prevalent culture so that Bills can often be changed after their formal introduction. A macho attitude prevents such change from occurring. Pre-legislative scrutiny—there should be more of it and it should be more systematic—is intended to ease that process and, as the report said, make any change before the whole thing is set in concrete less of a climbdown for Ministers.
The Committee has sought to organise the business of the House so that activity is more evenly spaced throughout the year—although, frankly, that will be hugely difficult, given the competing claims already described by the Leader of the House. The Committee has also sought to maintain the flexibility that is obviously required in any legislative system to cope with an unforeseen situation that has to be legislated for. There have been many such examples in the previous Parliament and other Parliaments, and there will be examples in this one. It clearly makes much sense that there should be more opportunity for pre-legislative scrutiny and consultation.
There should also be as much clarity as possible in proceedings, from the explanatory material published with Bills right through to the Order Paper. I am glad that the changes to the Order Paper have been well received.
There are ideas for more flexibility in the arrangements for Committee sittings and for experimenting with the ways in which a Standing Committee considers clauses in order to encourage more constructive consideration. All the ideas are sensible.
The Opposition have made it clear that we would, however, strongly resist any suggestion that there should be change to what "Erskine May" calls
the regular practice for Government bills of first class constitutional importance to be committed to a Committee of the whole House".
Our view to that effect is recorded in the Committee's report. We reject suggestions from some that there might somehow be problems with definition or with ordering such business or that the House is incapable of scrutinising such Bills adequately and in detail.
The Leader of the House has chaired the Committee with skill and, on occasion, the patience of at least a minor saint—and that was only with those on her own side. I name no names. We on the Opposition Benches accept the report, while putting down a marker about our reservations on the treatment of constitutional Bills. Clearly, the report is one thing and what the Government intend to do about it is another. The Leader of the House gave some indications in her opening speech of the Government's ideas.
The Chairmen's Panel has expressed its view on the report's implications for the Chairman's role. We must take great notice of that. The work that our Chairmen do as impartial arbiters in Committees and elsewhere in the House is of inestimable importance. We need to take very seriously the points that they make.
I must give notice that we shall scrutinise the Standing Orders carefully when they are eventually placed before the House, in the interests both of the official Opposition and of the House. In particular, we shall examine the proposals for changes in timetabling business to see whether what is proposed will achieve a more consensual approach to a contentious and potent political issue or whether we are merely considering more user-friendly terminology.
One way of achieving the genuine consensus described in the report might be for timetabling motions to be required to be submitted in the name not only of the Leader of the House but of the shadow Leader of the House and the leaders of other Opposition parties. There will be time to discuss all that. Perhaps the Leader of the House might like to consider it.
Mention has been made of changes in attitude towards debate in the House. As we are talking about matters of great importance to the House, I must express some regret at the reputation that, sadly, the Government have earned already for a contempt for Parliament and all its works. I must make my feelings clear, although I will be brief. It is a matter of regret that Prime Minister's questions take place only once a week. It is a matter of regret that the announcement of the operational independence of the Bank of England was made not by a statement to the House but by a press conference. It is a matter of regret that we had an announcement of the Government's policy on the European single currency, again not by a statement but by telephone calls by the Chancellor's press secretary. Those calls caused enormous fluctuations on the equity markets, affecting the value of the future pensions of millions of people. Other unfortunate blips have occurred when, for example, the Minister of Transport did not turn up for an Adjournment debate at all.
Members of Parliament have not been elected to be made over—a process to which the hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes) referred this

afternoon—or to be on message, or to stay submissively silent until paged to speak. That is not what their constituents expect and is not what parliamentary democracy is about. Sensible, evolutionary reform can strengthen our parliamentary democracy: we support it. Contempt for Parliament and its conventions weakens our democracy and our country: we will not allow that to happen.

Mr. Robert Sheldon: It is clear that my right hon. Friend intends to be a reforming Leader of the House, following in the footsteps of Dick Crossman and Norman St. John-Stevas. The best time to undertake reform is in the early years of a Parliament and I am pleased that she is doing so.
I wish to make one point about our practice of calling hon. Members by their constituencies rather than by their names. I have always been proud to be the Member of Parliament for Ashton-under-Lyne. It is my constituency and I am here not because I am myself, but because I represent the people of my constituency. It would be a retrograde step if we were to abandon that practice.
The House is now a more full-time House than it has been in the past. One example is that, when I arrive in the morning, at 9 o'clock or sometimes earlier, many more hon. Members are around. Incidentally, the Vote Office is closed until 9.30 am, and we should change that so that it is open earlier for Members' convenience.
The main burden of today's debate is the scrutiny of legislation. We must remember that Standing Committees are really ad hoc committees and their members do not necessarily have any relevant expertise. They are brought together to scrutinise some legislation without necessarily having much of a background in the subject. Of course, some members will have some background knowledge, but the advantage of the involvement of a Select Committee is that its members do have a background in the subject.
The big problem with the way in which Standing Committees currently operate is that it involves the silent being hectored by the voluble. Members of the Standing Committee from the governing party do nothing, although they may be very able and well equipped to contribute. It is a major scandal that our legislation on important issues is dealt with in that way, but that has happened because the Opposition's principal weapon is the power of delay. The best example of the use of that power that I can recall was by lain Macleod in 1967, when we introduced a Standing Committee to scrutinise the Finance Bill. Before that, Finance Bills were always taken on the Floor of the House. The then Leader of the House, Dick Crossman, suggested that the Finance Bill be taken in Committee, but that was wildly resented by the Opposition. Iain Macleod, the shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer, spent one and half days in Committee Room 10 talking about the temperature of the Room. That was very effective, because it brought about the realisation that the Opposition had rights. As a result, a sensible and effective compromise was reached, whereby the Opposition could choose matters for debate on the Floor of the House and other matters could be taken in Committee.
The problem now is that the Opposition's power of delay has been eroded, through the increased use of the guillotine. The Whips have also tended to use their power


to ensure that dissentient voices are not heard so frequently in Standing Committees. As a result, Standing Committees no longer resemble the bodies that existed in the past. I well recall the Rooker-Wise amendment, because I was the Financial Secretary to the Treasury at the time. The two Members of Parliament after whom the amendment was named could not be shut up, and when I heard that they were to be members of the Standing Committee I went straight to the Chief Whip and said that that would cost us £500 million. The actual cost was £1 billion, but those two hon. Members were right. However, that situation is not likely to happen often.
Another problem is that senior Ministers do not attend Standing Committees as they used to in the past. The Chancellor of the Exchequer used to handle the Finance Bill. Now it is not even the second Minister who attends, but the third Minister. If a senior Minister is present and has to go through the night, he or she tends to be more convinced by the Opposition's arguments. Now, the third Minister may complain about being kept all night, but the Secretary of State in charge gets up in the morning and waves the objections aside. That is understandable, because he or she wants the legislation to go through.
I have come to the conclusion, much to the disgust of many of my right hon. Friends, that the hopes of compromises in Committee have had their day. The Opposition can no longer use the power of delay in the same way, so we should now ensure that legislation is sensibly examined. On several occasions, legislation has fallen seriously below an acceptable standard, and that has happened when a Government have been sure that their actions were right and the Opposition—having only a truncated power of delay—fail to make any changes to it.
As a result, I now believe that timetabling is essential. Timetabling can be to the advantage of the Opposition, as well as the Government, because there must be a trade-off. The Government get their business through and the Opposition get time. That was the obvious trade-off in the past. In the past, the system was informal, but we must make it a little more formal, because the Opposition have the right to put their view and to be heard. I believe that timetabling will be the crucial issue affecting legislation. The most important date in the timetable is that for the Report stage, because a timetable is not so necessary after that.
My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House is right to say that we need the confidence to undertake experiments. Not every aspect of the modernisation process will be right first time, but if we allow for some variation we can find ways to make more permanent changes. That is the way to proceed.
I wish to deal with one or two particular aspects of the very useful Select Committee report. Paragraph 37 talks about Acts being written in clear language, and my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House referred rightly to explanatory notes. The net could be more widely used, but a major problem is how the notes will be looked at by lawyers and others implementing the Acts and considering the intentions of Parliament.
I have particular personal experience of that because, 20-odd years ago, I introduced the benefits-in-kind legislation, under which people were to be charged income tax on the benefits that they received during their work. We went right through several nights running and I—with a small team in those days—tried to explain why

the measure was essential. To my surprise, many years later a procedure was introduced whereby what I said became a part of the intentions of the Government and was used to interpret the Act. I had to look at what I had said at 3 o'clock in the morning in the hope that it made sense. Luckily, it did. I am not sure how fortuitous that was.
Clearly, Ministers replying now try—as they should—to expound the principles behind an amendment or other measure, but they should try also to achieve some compromise wherever possible. If they have to bear it in mind that what they say will be interpreted in this way as part of the Act, they will be more constrained. I am uneasy about the fact that the explanatory notes—which are not intended to be a part of the Act—could be shown to give an understanding of what was behind Parliament's intentions. This was never considered 20 years ago, but is now part of the fabric of our legal system.
Paragraph 97 of the Modernisation Committee's report suggests that the Chairman could be given new powers to limit the length of speeches. Clearly, that would apply only when a filibuster was under way. In my experience of Standing Committees, that is much of the time. A greater problem is that, in a Committee, one can speak more than once. That is justifiable, because the point of a Committee is that, after listening to colleagues and to Opposition Members, one may find something that, perhaps, one had not thought of before. How will the Chairman be certain that a filibuster is taking place? Our colleagues are ingenious; they do not read out the telephone directory, as they know that the Chairman would not allow it.
The report referred to Select Committees meeting during the recess, and my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House referred to the importance of Select Committees. Select Committees have met during the recess—one of the great things we saw was the enthusiasm for Select Committees, which I wholly admire. We need to improve their work. When I gave evidence to the Nolan committee, I found that, when I arrived there at 9 o'clock in the morning, the minutes of the previous day's meeting were available. When we have a Select Committee, we receive the minutes three weeks later. I know that special arrangements can be made to have them within 24 hours, but even that is not good enough. I spoke to Lord Nolan and those involved in his committee to see how they achieved that. I shall visit my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House to discuss this—I do not expect an answer now.
What happens in Select Committees is important—frequently more important than occasions on the Floor of the House—and we need to get their proceedings involved in the parliamentary process. Hon. Members must come here with evidence from Committees and integrate it into a consideration of the political problems of the day. Many members of a Select Committee—Chairmen included—are asked to comment on the previous day's proceedings. They must be careful because, although they have privilege in the Committee, they do not when they appear on radio or television or are reported in the newspapers. They may not be sure exactly what was said, unless they have the minutes.
The reports could be part of the general structure of the parliamentary day, rather than the cold porridge that so many of them are now. Some of the most important


evidence is not read. Who will read it three weeks' later—unless one has a particular interest? If yesterday's evidence were available, people would queue up to read it.
We must look at ways of monitoring and following up the reports of Select Committees. I know that we have three days of debates—I welcome that—but a proper follow-up is just as important. Was the Committee right in coming to a conclusion? Only time can tell. If we want to see what time has told, we must see what has happened in the meantime. The Public Accounts Commission has a superb system, involving the National Audit Office, to deal with 50 reports every year. If the Government agree with the Committee's conclusions, the NAO checks that they have implemented what they said they would. If they disagree, we see next year whether the Committee was right, or the Government.

Ms Walley: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, if the Environmental Audit Committee had those facilities, that would make an enormous difference to the role which it plays in seeing whether the Government are making progress?

Mr. Sheldon: My hon. Friend is absolutely right.
I hope that the Liaison Committee will act as a clearing house for some of the new ideas. The Treasury Select Committee is undertaking what may be called "confirmatory hearings", and those will be useful in examining the Committee's role in some matters. I shall consult my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House to discuss some possibilities. Clearly, she intends to be a reforming Leader of the House. I welcome her appointment and her actions here.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Madam Speaker: I will call the right hon. Member for South Norfolk (Mr. MacGregor) next. May I just say that many right hon. and hon. Members are interested in taking part in the debate? Unless those speaking discipline themselves, all Members will not be called. I would not dream of inhibiting the right hon. Member for South Norfolk.

Mr. John MacGregor: I shall try to be as concise as possible, Madam Speaker. I speak as a supporter of appropriate modernisation, as I hope I demonstrated when I was Leader of the House—not least in setting up the Jopling Committee. My only regret about that is that there was insufficient time between the Committee's report and the 1992 general election to enable me to implement its recommendations.
I take the point of the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) that it is sometimes easier to get changes through in the earlier part of a Parliament than the latter part. I was pleased that my long-standing friend and ex-colleague Tony Newton, as Leader of the House, was able to make the reforms, with great co-operation from the present Leader of the House.
I wish to make a few general points before I deal with one or two specific proposals. First, I want to refer to the importance of carrying the House on any changes. This is partly a cultural point and partly a practical point.
Paragraph 17 of the report says:
Another major factor in the largely inflexible approach to legislation adopted hitherto is essentially that of the culture of the House.
I agree with the point about culture, but I do not think that we have been inflexible: many changes have been made and the report builds on them. The paragraph is absolutely right when it says that
there must be a will in all parts of the House to achieve cooperation wherever it is possible.
I am glad that the Leader of the House acknowledged that when she spoke about good will on all sides.
The will to co-operate was in my mind when I set up the Jopling Committee and it is why I sought to have hon. Members of all parties and of different ages and experience on it. Many people then thought—as the Leader of the House said was thought about the present Committee—that it would not be possible to reach agreement in that Committee, but it was, and that was of huge benefit in getting the changes through.
When I was an Opposition Whip, then a Government Whip, then a Minister in various Departments, before becoming Leader of the House, I was frequently struck by the fact that the procedures of the House are such that a determined minority—often a very small one—can hold up processes and make change almost impossible. Many who were then Opposition Members were expert at that, and one had to take that into account when making changes.
I underline the importance of what my right hon. Friend the Member for South-West Norfolk (Mrs. Shephard) said when she stressed the importance of good will, especially among Government Back Benchers, and of the Government's approach to such matters in the House.
I was very disappointed when I heard a Labour Member say, I think, "Now you've spoilt it" while my right hon. Friend was speaking. That comment showed a potentially dangerous misunderstanding of the point that she was making. The hon. Gentleman who said it should be aware of that. There are all sorts of legitimate opportunities to hold matters up, sometimes simply to express the irritation of Members of Parliament who feel that they are being bypassed or that their role is being diminished.
Some of the abruptness and impatience that we have witnessed from the Government, supported by their Back Benchers, should not occur, because, if we are to get the changes through, as we all want, the Government must understand the sensitivities. If there is a feeling that Parliament is being bypassed or ignored or that its role is being diminished by the Government, it is less easy to put into effect the practical, commonsense changes that we think will benefit the House. The Government should be willing to put up with the odd filibuster, because there may be a good reason for it.
Paragraph 7 of the report refers to
a distinct culture prevalent throughout Whitehall that the standing and reputation of Ministers have been dependent on their Bills getting through largely unchanged.
That may be true to some extent, but civil servants also feel that their reputation depends on resisting every amendment, even purely technical ones, to a Bill that they have been involved in drafting. As a Minister in charge of Bills I noticed that "Resist" was written above almost every amendment, even if the point was technical.
If Parliament is to play its proper role in scrutinising legislation, Ministers must be willing to overrule their civil servants, who in turn should not feel that every bit of a Bill that they have drafted is inviolable. Sometimes a Bill comes back from another place with about 500 amendments; how much better it would be if they were made earlier.
I agree with all the criteria set out in paragraph 14, although some are more important than others. I want particularly to stress that
All parts of a Bill must be properly considered".
That will lead me on later to a point or two about timetabling.
Paragraph 14(d) caught my eye. It says:
The time and expertise of Members must be used to better effect.
I was glad that the report recognised Members' expertise. That brings me to a wider point, which is perhaps more relevant to the Nolan committee. I have always been a strong advocate of the House being composed of people with outside expertise, not derived only from their constituents, that they can bring to the workings of the House, especially in legislation. That is why I have always strongly advocated Members continuing to have outside interests. The report acknowledges that their expertise can be relevant on Bills and in other ways.
I strongly agree with the report's approach on flexibility and its recognition that not all Bills are the same, that some may be treated differently from others, and that we can experiment. One or two of the proposals will probably die a death in due course, but I am perfectly happy for us to experiment with them to find out whether they have a contribution to make.
The Government must recognise that several of the recommendations have a considerable time implication. If the Government are to implement them thoroughly, more parliamentary time will have to be given to Bills and there will have to be less legislation. That applies in particular to some of the suggestions in relation to First Reading.

Mrs. Ann Taylor: The right hon. Gentleman says that if we give more time to certain Bills we will have to extend the overall time and have less legislation. Does he agree that in the strict routine that we have for legislation we do not always need to give matters as much time as we do? We are very good at wasting time in the House. The fact that we want to extend time in one area does not mean that it could not be saved in other areas.
If we had more draft Bills and early legislation and got the legislation nearer to how it should be at that stage—I believe that the right hon. Member for South-West Norfolk (Mrs. Shephard) agreed with that—it might go through more quickly. We need to be flexible and do what is most appropriate for each specific Bill.

Mr. MacGregor: One of my hobbies is mind reading, and as I made my last remark I could almost read the right hon. Lady's mind. I knew what she was thinking and I recognise her point, which is why I was treading fairly carefully. She is right in some respects, but I suspect that, in practice, when there is draft legislation followed by the normal processes, those processes may not necessarily be all that much shorter. The great merit will be that the House will pass more considered legislation. I hope that that will lead to our not having to revisit the legislation.
One of our defects—I have been guilty of it myself as Leader of the House—is that we spend so little time considering the revisions by the House of Lords. It is a bit of a scandal that we sometimes make a large number of Lords amendments with hardly any consideration. Many of the amendments are technical, granted, but not all. We agree that the way in which both Houses consider legislation may become lengthier, but will be better.
I am not entirely enamoured of one or two of the specific proposals. I am not sure that they will be a permanent feature. I strongly agree with the drift of the report that permanent legislative Committees are not really the answer, for all the reasons set out in the report. I have some doubts whether the departmental Select Committee is the right place to consider legislation in draft because the membership is already decided for reasons other than the specific piece of legislation.
It may be better to have an ad hoc Select Committee, as the report recommends, because it will be possible to appoint people with specific expertise—in pensions, for example, as the Leader of the House said. The ad hoc Select Committee is probably the right way to take this forward, and 1 would like some experiments on that. I am doubtful about several of the First Reading Committee proposals, but let us see how they work.
I particularly favour two proposals: the ad hoc Select Committee, on which I do not intend to elaborate further, and the Special Standing Committee. As a very junior Minister—Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Industry—I took through what I believe to have been the first Bill with a Special Standing Committee procedure attached to it. It concerned international exploitation of mineral resources, in particular manganese nodules, in the sea. It was a fairly technical Bill but interesting for me as a Minister and, I am sure, for all the Back Benchers. It was a worthwhile experience, and I am rather sad that we have not used the procedure more.
The Bill required many representations from big international companies and from the many scientists who were directly affected by it. The Special Standing Committee procedure, whereby Ministers and Back Benchers are able to question witnesses, meant that we all learned a great deal. I think that I learned more from that process than from the departmental briefing. We got agreement on some of the issues and therefore did not have to deal with them in the Bill's later stages.

Sir Peter Emery: May I point out to my right hon. Friend that the recommendations for a Special Standing Committee procedure were made by the Procedure Committee in 1988–89 but seldom, if ever, carried out by the Government of which he was a member?

Mr. MacGregor: I said that sometimes I plead guilty. The Bill that I took through had an earlier form of Special Standing Committee procedure because it was in the early 1980s, before that recommendation. The principle and the benefits were the same.
I strongly agree with the report's sensible suggestions in paragraph 44 on greater flexibility on Special Standing Committee procedures. In the past, it has always been thought that Special Standing Committees are of greater relevance to non-political or highly technical Bills. They are relevant in those cases, but there will be politically contentious Bills that are not of the type to which we have


previously applied the procedure but in respect of which there is much expert outside interest. The ability to probe witnesses in front of the Committee greatly adds to the strength of the process. I hope that it will be regarded as a measure not only for technical Bills but for others: some pensions Bills are an obvious example.
I concur with the widely expressed criticisms of the methods that we have used in Standing Committees. I do not need to rehearse the arguments because we are all familiar with them. We know how we got into situations where large parts of Bills were not considered and why they had to be guillotined and so forth. I believe—I said this when I was Leader of the House, although I know that it is not accepted by all right hon. and hon. Members—that timetabling has to be the right way to ensure that all parts of Bills are properly considered. That was the target that the Modernisation Committee set itself.
The result of the Jopling report was a voluntary agreement on timetabling in the previous Parliament, which I think worked well. It was greatly to the benefit of the House and, above all, to proper scrutiny of Bills. I am not sure that the more detailed and formal format now proposed is necessary, but I am again prepared to see how it works. I recognise that there may be contentious Bills where such a format is necessary to get agreement. In most cases, I hope that it can be done through the usual channels as in the previous Parliament. The matter lies at the heart of proper scrutiny of Bills and it is therefore important, whether done formally or informally, that it is carried through.
On the carry-over of Bills and paragraph 102 of the report, I think that it is right to have the flexibility that applies to private and hybrid Bills, not least because it is one way of handling the too frequent problem where many amendments come back from the House of Lords and we rush them through in the last three or four days. No one could argue that that is satisfactory. The problem arises because, inevitably, some Bills will be introduced later in the Session; they cannot all be done earlier. A genuine pressure on time causes that. Used sensibly, this proposal is a way of ensuring better scrutiny at that stage. That is why I have one point of doubt about another part of the report.
The report suggests that the new approach should apply if there is
identification by the Government as early as possible of any Bill it wished to be subject to a carry-over procedure",
and
that the procedure should only be used for Bills which are either to be subject to select committee type scrutiny or are introduced after a certain period in the session".
That is unnecessarily restrictive.
There may be occasions when a major Bill that is introduced early in the Session, but is not identified as one to which the procedure should apply undergoes many changes—especially in the other place. It may be better to allow a limited amount of carry-over than do what we have done in the past—give no attention to what the other place has done and have no opportunity to discuss the changes that it has made. I am in favour of the principle, but I hope that there will be flexibility.
I hope that my remarks show that I applaud the Committee's work. The fact that it is unanimous is highly desirable. Above all, it will need good will, not least on the Government's side, to ensure that the new reforms work.

Mr. Peter L. Pike: I am glad to have the opportunity to speak on the Modernisation Committee's report. The Prime Minister has rightly said, both before and since the general election, that if we are to improve democracy we must address the problems of democracy in the way the House functions. That is what the Modernisation Committee is addressing. There is much that we will have to do.
The right hon. Member for South Norfolk (Mr. MacGregor) made several points. I welcome his comments on rollover; if anything, the report is too restrictive. I recognise, however, which it is an important change of principle. It may be something that we must test before gradually moving further in that direction.
I have said several times that people elect a Parliament for five years, not one. The Government could have a much more balanced programme than having all Second Readings at one time of year, then having Committees before sending Bills to the other place, bringing them back here and causing an unnecessary crush.
When we debated the railway privatisation legislation, the other place would carry amendments and send them to us. We did not know what they had carried, and we were asked to vote on amendments that had not even been printed. That was nonsense. I have questioned—some might consider this heretical—whether we need a Queen's Speech every year. Why not just have one at the start of Parliament? If we must have annual speeches, why not announce that the Government will introduce legislation, but continue with other legislation? I see no reason for not moving in that direction.
Hon. Members have commented on Select Committees. I served for a number of years on the Environment Committee under the chairmanship of Sir Hugh Rossi. Some 15 years ago, we produced a tremendous number of reports on environmental issues such as acid rain, nuclear waste and river pollution. People condemned them as outrageous, but most of them were subsequently accepted and they are now considered the norm.
Select Committees do a tremendous amount of good work, but the resources available to them for expert advice are a little too tight. I do not say that we should go mad, but I hope that we shall ensure that Select Committees are adequately resourced to do their job. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) rightly said, we must ensure that all Select Committee reports have an opportunity to be debated and are monitored at a future date to see what effect they have had.
We sometimes allow people outside this place to judge Parliament by what is done in the Chamber, whereas much important work is done in Committee. The other day, my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House said that some 467 hon. Members were serving on various Committees at that point, yet most people, even if they read the newspapers, do not know what those Committees do. We must therefore ensure that people are better informed.
My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House referred to voting. The third voting desk has certainly helped. She said that it had alleviated the problem; it has not solved the problem, however, and we should not pretend that it has. I dread the day when the Conservatives vote with Labour and opposition comes only from the Liberal Democrats—the crush would be unbearable.
We should try to maintain the principle that votes are taken in person in the Chamber or close to it. We should not introduce desktop voting in various parts of the House. While it would be wrong to jump to conclusions, the Committee should look further into all these issues.
My right hon. Friend also referred to European legislation. The last Procedure Committee produced a unanimous report on European legislation which I hope will be used as a base for the Modernisation Committee's work. The Committee did a lot of the spade work, so some repetition could be avoided if its report is taken as a starting point.
There are differing views on the parliamentary day and year. Some want to start work on a Monday morning, but others who live a long distance away would then have to travel to London on a Sunday, which would be detrimental. The 2.30 pm start on Mondays, whatever happens on other days, should remain. Some people believe that finishing at 7 o'clock on Thursdays would enable everybody to get away to do constituency work on Fridays. That is nonsense for those who depend on public transport. They would have to use their own cars if they wanted to return to their constituencies on a Thursday night and use constituency Fridays fully. When I have a constituency Friday, I try to put four or five appointments in my diary to use the day fully, but I cannot rely on public transport and have to use my own car in both directions.
Another difficulty, which arose just after the general election, is where hon. Members can speak from in this Chamber. It is ridiculous that so few seats are available when there are other seats in the Chamber where additional microphones could be installed to enable more hon. Members to exercise their right to speak.
Some might say that the Chamber is rarely full, but it is wrong that a percentage of hon. Members should be excluded from their democratic right to speak in Parliament. A couple of weeks ago, I came into the Chamber for Prime Minister's Question Time half an hour beforehand and found the Labour Benches already full. That barred me from the opportunity to speak, had I wanted to do so. We should extend the available speaking places to other parts of the Chamber.
We should also consider 10-minute time limits for most speeches and review the rules on interventions. It must be recognised that interventions should be relevant and brief. The character and debating style of the House are spoilt by people delivering 10-minute, sterile speeches, with no to and fro in the debate. We must maintain some flexibility.
The report is not one which the Government can accept, because it is not just for the Government. Some aspects are, because they initiate the legislation, but the Opposition have responsibilities too, if we are to proceed positively. Indeed, every Member of Parliament has a responsibility to make our procedures work if we are to proceed as the report suggests. If we want better

government, better legislation, better debate, and an Opposition able to look at different parts of Bills properly, we need to proceed as the report suggests.
I remember my first full Bill in the House. It was the Transport Bill of 1985, on which I spoke for four hours in Committee without adding one iota to the debate. Many important clauses were not debated as a result.
This proposal is sensible for good government and good legislation and it gives the Opposition, whichever party they happen to be, a fair opportunity.

Sir Peter Emery: I am delighted to follow the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike). He serves with me on the Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons and was an astute Member of my Procedure Committee for many years in the previous Parliaments. He would support my claim that nobody has been a greater procedural reformer in the House than I have tried to be over the 14 years that I chaired the Procedure Committee.
I remember discussing with my right hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk (Mr. MacGregor) the need to set up a Jopling-type Committee—for example, with a number of Privy Counsellors, and the chairman of the parliamentary Labour party—rather than leave everything with the Procedure Committee. That was so that greater weight could be put into the recommendations and so that the Committee had the strength to command the approval of the vast majority of the House.
It has been pointed out that it takes very little to stop procedural reform. I remind new Members that Jopling was delayed for two years because of the conservatism of one particular Member of Parliament. At that time, he sat on the Opposition Front Bench next to the Gangway. Don Dixon was Deputy Chief Whip of the Labour party. Only when we could swing him round could we proceed with Jopling. We therefore need reports that can be carried with the vast majority of opinion in the affirmative.

Mr. Frank Cook: I remind the House that Mr. Don Dixon, now the noble Lord Dixon, was not swung round at all. He is still very much averse to the Jopling proposals. I remind the House that the need for Jopling arose because the Government left the reports issued so regularly and consistently by the Procedure Committee, of which I was also a member, on the shelf gathering dust.

Sir Peter Emery: I do not disagree with anything that the hon. Gentleman says. It only goes to show that proposals need Government support, whichever Government are in power, and I shall fight this Government as I fought my own to advance the procedures.
I should like to pose a few questions—I do not know who is to wind up. I am delighted that the report expresses a unanimous view that we must find procedures to ensure that all parts of a Bill are debated in Committee before it comes back to the House. It was a crying disgrace that legislation used to come back on Report when perhaps only a third—or sometimes a quarter—of the Bill had been considered in Committee. That is not the way in which the Opposition should perform, and I would not want the Conservative party in opposition to perform in


that manner. We are here to try to make the best possible legislation, and that must mean that all sections of a Bill must be considered in Committee.
I am sure that, like me, the whole House welcomes the Committee's suggestions on pre-legislative scrutiny. Such scrutiny would make legislation much better, so when will we start? When will one or two Bills that the Government have in train be considered by a pre-legislative Committee, so that we can carry forward the suggestions made in paragraphs 19 and 20 of the report?
I come now to paragraph 43. I am delighted that, as I pointed out in my intervention on the right hon. Member for South Norfolk—

Mr. MacGregor: I thought I was your friend.

Sir Peter Emery: I am sorry—the right hon. Member is a close friend, if I may say so without being misinterpreted. The Special Standing Committee procedure has been in the Standing Orders for long enough and the report urges that it should be used more often. I am sorry to say that we have not yet seen it used by the Government.

Mrs. Ann Taylor: Oh, come on.

Sir Peter Emery: I know that it is early days yet, but a lot of legislation is coming through now and I hope to receive an assurance that some of it will go to a Special Standing Committee.
Paragraphs 83 and 95 deal with Committee procedure and Committees on European and secondary legislation. Way back in June, we were told that the Government would consider and report on that subject, but we have seen nothing yet. May we put a rocket under the Government so that they express their view and allow that aspect of the report to be carried forward?
I hope that the very sensible suggestion of my right hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk that Lords amendments could be sent back to the original Committee for consideration, so that they do not have to be galloped through on the Floor of the House, is accepted. Let us make certain that that comes about.
I have one slight worry. I was willing to go along with the proposal on enabling Bills to be carried over from one Session to the next, but it is imperative that, by agreeing to that, the Opposition do not let the Government off the hook and so allow the Government to play legislation any way they please for however long they want. Such practice is to the detriment both of good legislation and of the Opposition. I understand that if a Bill is introduced late in a Session, there might be an argument for carrying it over, but we must look carefully at such a recommendation, to ensure that it does not emasculate the power of the Opposition.
I now refer to points relating to the Chairmen's Panel. In common with the hon. Member for Burnley, other hon. Members might welcome powers being given to Chairmen to limit the length of speeches in Committees. It is interesting that the Chairmen's Panel went further than the Select Committee and suggested that
the power to limit the length of speeches should apply to Ministers and other frontbench spokesmen

and not only to Back Benchers. That idea from the Chairmen's Panel is revolutionary, but it is nevertheless interesting and we should bear it in mind.

Mr. MacGregor: I understand the reasons behind that suggestion, but I have always felt that the difficulty facing Ministers is that so many hon. Members want to intervene and probe the Minister on the legislation or whatever is being discussed that their speeches are inevitably lengthened. Will my right hon. Friend bear that in mind?

Sir Peter Emery: I entirely agree with my close and right hon. Friend. However, like the hon. Member for Burnley, I believe that if a time limit is applied, additional time should be allowed when interventions use up part of the allotted time.
We suggested that the Opposition should have access to advisers in Committees, but the Chairmen's Panel has said that that might be complicated and difficult. The Select Committee should look again at that suggestion—the idea behind it is correct, but I understand the Chairmen's point.
It is not my job, as a member of the Select Committee, to put forward new ideas, but I have one that has been a hobby-horse for some time. We have a large number of Select Committees whose members work immensely hard. The Leader of the House tells me that nearly 470 hon. Members sit on such Committees, but how many of their reports are debated on the Floor of the House? If we are lucky, we get about six debates on departmental Select Committee reports scattered throughout the Session, through what used to be called Supply day procedure, although we are now hoping to use some of the Wednesday morning slots. Have we not reached the point where we should set up a "Select Committee Grand Committee" in which every Select Committee report could be debated—a Grand Committee with perhaps 50 members with voting rights and every hon. Member having the right to attend and speak? Every recommendation or report from a Select Committee would go to that Grand Committee, thereby ensuring that the work of the few could be properly debated and considered on behalf of the whole House.
That is all I want to say for now. I hope that it will do nothing to detract from her popularity on the Government Benches, but I congratulate the Leader of the House on having conducted the chairmanship of the Modernisation Committee with charm, elegance and a great deal of efficiency. I am most grateful to her.

Mr. Frank Cook: I am aware that I have already spoken on several occasions during this Parliament; on at least one of those occasions I spoke at considerable length. I want to assure the House that those speeches were not exercises in self-indulgence: I spoke because I needed to and I spoke at length because I needed to cover the subject. On this occasion, once again, I shall speak not because I want to be in the Chamber but because I have a job to do. I must explain that I am speaking as a member of the Chairmen's Panel. I have consulted collectively with my colleagues—and individually, in and out of formal session—and it would be remiss of me if I did not draw attention to some of the points that cause us concern as Chairmen.
I remind the House that members of the Chairmen's Panel commit themselves to sitting—as you do, Mr. Deputy Speaker—throughout the proceedings of a Committee, unable to walk in or out of the Committee Room as they might wish. They must stay there whether they like it or not. They must stay awake and alert. They must exercise good humour, patience and diligence. They must do all that with the good grace that you, your colleagues and Madam Speaker exercise in the Chamber—not an inconsiderable responsibility.
Chairmen do so because they believe in the parliamentary process, not because they are committed to a party political alliance or line—they save that for other occasions. When they sit in the Chair, they exercise a stark level of clinical impartiality. I believe that, for the effort that they put in, they deserve the greatest attention. I pray for that attention now.
My hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) would berate me if I did not draw attention to the following points. We concern ourselves with the interests of the individual Back Bencher and the protection of those interests. There is a fear that concentration on the acceleration of business through the House and through its processes might to some extent damage and debilitate the interests of the individual Member when acting in an individual role.
Let me take an example. In paragraph 8 of our report, we plead for a Front-Bench spokesperson, when operating in Committee, to bear in mind the interests and views of the Members sitting behind him or her on the same side of the Committee. An unfortunate example of what can happen when that does not occur, which comes readily to mind, is what happened during the passage of the Bill that became the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1988, when we were discussing changes in firearms legislation as a direct result of the tragedy that occurred at Hungerford.
I was acting as Opposition Whip. Both sides of the Committee were split on the requirements of the legislation as laid down, and the Government probably had more of their Committee members opposing the proposals than they had supporting them. I believe that it was the first time in history that the Government lost their sittings motion at the first sitting, because there was such diversity of opinion.
If such a situation were repeated, one would need an assurance that the Front-Bench spokesmen would be prepared to heed—not necessarily accommodate in full agreement, but accommodate with some kind of presentational skills—views that were at variance with those expressed by the Government or with the Front-Bench policy statement. That would certainly apply if a time limit were to be imposed.
I take on board the comments made by the right hon. Member for East Devon (Sir P. Emery) regarding time limits. We suggested that a similar limitation be placed on Ministers, because otherwise a Minister can take up almost the whole session. As my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike) said, he spoke for four hours in Committee simply to take up time. Ministers can take four hours, whether or not they want to take up time. I believe that the record in Committee is 11 hours 25 minutes, during consideration of the Telecommunications Bill.
I believe, as do some of my colleagues, that if time limits are to be imposed on a Back-Bench Member, they should be imposed on the Minister—bearing in mind the

fact that the Minister is able to speak more than once on any question. Indeed, one hopes that a similar privilege will be extended to Back-Bench Members, because points of clarification or points of explanation can come up in a debate. One cannot get up with a pat speech and give it and be sure that one has said everything, because one has not heard the response that will ensue in the flexible debate for which my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley pleaded.
One of the virtues of the House is the give and take of debate. Parliaments throughout the world envy our ability to debate across the Chamber—to give way and come back at one another and to create a flowing argument. If we are to conduct the line-by-line scrutiny that the Committee stage demands, we must foster and protect such flexibility.

Mr. David Trimble: I agree entirely with what the hon. Gentleman says about the importance of give and take in debate through interventions, but does he agree that introducing a time limit instantly kills debate? With a time limit of 10 minutes, which we sometimes have in the House, the Member who is speaking knows that he cannot afford to take interventions, because they would occupy too much of his time and might prevent him from making an important point. If we have time limits, we shall not have interventions and we shall not have the type of debate that the hon. Gentleman rightly wants. That is a serious problem.

Mr. Cook: Indeed it is. I have been a victim of that situation many times. If I were to express a personal view, which I will now, I would say that I do not believe in limitation of time. If one is to express a considered view, one must be given the time to express it clearly and understandably. Sadly, I am trying to represent the views of the Chairmen's Panel as they have been discussed in and out of session, so I am trying to do that authentically and with integrity, but on a personal note, I agree entirely.
Now you have made me lose my place—I do beg your pardon, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Now the right hon. Gentleman has caused me to search again for my links.
Paragraph 4 of the Chairmen's report says:
We … do not think it appropriate for us to express any collective view on the merits or demerits of the main procedural changes proposed; those are matters for the House as a whole to resolve".
However, the Chairmen then list a number of areas with which they take great issue.
The report pleads for an element of good will towards the Chairman. I say Chairman because it is called the Chairmen's Panel. It may be politically incorrect, but I think that it is the biblical sense of Chairman. We need good will anyway, do we not, Mr. Deputy Speaker, as Chairmen, sitting in that position of clinical impartiality? It is not always displayed, but it is always sought.
An important plea that we made, but which does not have total agreement in the panel, is for Standing Committees to be empowered to receive and publish written evidence. That is an important proposal, which could expedite the more careful and more comprehensive consideration of an issue under discussion and legislative consideration.
We are worried about what appears to be an attempt to limit probing amendments. Such an attempt would be understandable, because those who are experienced in


Committee procedure know that sometimes amendments are tabled and discussed that appear to make no sense. However, such amendments facilitate discussion around facts that might not be elicited in any other way and often clarify the issue. We are concerned that that might become a concrete proposal and we believe that it would be difficult to adapt to that.
The Leader of the House referred to our suggestions that the proposals should be extended across the board and described us as wanting to be more adventurous. Perhaps we do, but there is a much more practical point. If we were to confine the exercise of the measures to any particular range of Committees, there is a chance that some hon. Members—whether experienced or inexperienced—would operate in ignorance of some of the practical consequences of applying those rules.
The report also suggests that the Opposition should have access to advisers. I am afraid that we strongly oppose that idea. There are other ways of dealing with the issue, and we do not believe that that suggestion should be accepted at this stage. I believe also that Select Committees, which are reactive at present, should be empowered to be proactive.
Paragraph 5 is the most important paragraph in the Chairmen's Panel report. The Leader of the House said that the report was useful and would be considered, but she did not refer to any specifics. I hope that my right hon. Friend will provide an assurance on paragraph 5, which states:
A general acceptance that the changes now proposed will be subject to review, refinement or even rescission before being written into the permanent standing orders of the House will be welcome.
I hope to receive that acceptance tonight.

Mr. David Trimble: I apologise to the Leader of the House for the fact that I was not present at the beginning of the debate, and consequently did not hear most of her speech. I had to deal with the consequences of a factory closure in my constituency and the loss of 500 jobs. That situation obviously merited my grave attention.
I wish to make several general points before dealing with some matters in detail. I welcome the fact that we have a Modernisation Committee and I welcome the reports. It is most encouraging that, at the beginning of the Parliament, the Government are prepared to look seriously at these issues and the way in which we do things. No matter what the procedures are, there is always scope for improvement.
Several hon. Members have said that the proposals build upon Jopling. I am sorry that they do not involve a more serious reconsideration of Jopling, as some hon. Members have serious reservations about how Jopling has operated in practice. Some aspects have worked well, but we believe that it has taken far too many important matters from the Floor of the House to be dealt with elsewhere. Several hon. Members complained that matters handled elsewhere—in Select Committees, Standing Committees, and so on—do not receive the attention that they deserve from hon. Members or from the wider community, and are not considered properly.
I cannot remember which hon. Member said, "If you want to keep something secret, say it in a Committee." I have never had the pleasure of serving on a Select

Committee, but I have enjoyed my service on several Standing Committees. My pleasure was increased considerably when I discovered that only one Standing Committee Hansard goes to Northern Ireland—and it is not available to the general public. Therefore, I can say whatever I like in Standing Committee and no one will ever know. That gives me a great deal of freedom—particularly in the many Committees where I am the only floating voter.
The right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon)—I am sorry that he is not in the Chamber at present—referred to Standing Committees, and I thoroughly enjoyed his contribution. He made some extremely telling points and demonstrated that some of the problems about which hon. Members complain derive not from long-standing tradition but from changes made in the past 20 to 25 years.
Far too many changes made in the past few decades have diminished the role of the House and of individual Members, both Government and Opposition. The right hon. Gentleman concluded that legislative programming would be necessary to remedy that problem. He suggested that the trade-off would be that the Government get their legislation and the Opposition get their time.
I must qualify that point: the official Opposition may get their time, but what about the minority parties? Their number has increased, and is likely to increase still more if the electoral changes favoured by Labour Members are introduced. Unless I am mistaken, the composition of the Modernisation Committee follows the usual pattern: Government and Conservative Members and two token Liberal Democrats—Liberal Democrats are usually tokens in such circumstances.
What about the other minority parties? They are regularly ignored when the House conducts business and when Committees are formed. The record shows that minority parties usually get a raw deal in the membership of Select and Standing Committees. It is about time that someone gave greater consideration to minority parties, particularly when some parties—such as ours—are the Opposition in the regions of the United Kingdom that they represent. Paragraph 14(b) of the report states:
The Opposition in particular and Members in general must have a full opportunity to discuss and seek to change provisions to which they attach importance.
In Northern Ireland, the Ulster Unionists are the largest Opposition party, and then there are the other Northern Ireland parties. The "Opposition" in the context of this place are not relevant to a lot of Northern Ireland business—although we do not exclude other parties. Unlike hon. Members from other regions, we do not object to the presence of other hon. Members in the Chamber for Northern Ireland debates or their involvement in Northern Ireland business. However, a proper approach in that area would be welcome.
I wish to raise several matters regarding the report on the legislative process, some of which will strike hon. Members as predictable—but they deserve to be made none the less. Paragraph 19 and the following paragraphs refer to pre-legislative scrutiny and attach that to the policy of publishing Bills in draft form. The Leader of the House referred to the publication of draft Bills, and the Government seem to think that the use of draft Bills will change legislative scrutiny significantly.
I wonder whether, in forming that view, any attention was paid to the experience in Northern Ireland, where we have had that practice for 20 years. Virtually all


legislation has been published in draft for consultation, with periods that vary between a couple of months and more than a year between publication of the draft and enactment of the legislation.
The draft Bills published in Northern Ireland are not linked to any parliamentary procedure to provide scrutiny, so some of my comments must be qualified in that respect. If the Northern Ireland Office were honest and frank—it is difficult for it to admit this, and it runs against the culture of the Northern Ireland Office to do so—it would admit that the consultation procedures attached to draft legislation in Northern Ireland are a total failure. There is no significant response from society to draft Bills.
I speak not merely from my experience in the House, but from my experience before I came to the House, when I was concerned in my university and professional capacity with legislation in certain fields. Even with regard to legislation that was particularly relevant to the profession that I practised—legislation that might have directly affected the way in which members of the profession conducted their business and their livelihoods—it was enormously difficult to get people to look at draft legislation. It is only a draft. It might never happen and, if it does, who knows when—this week, next month or next year?
People would not look at draft legislation. Even if the legislation dealt with technical, legal matters that directly related to conveyancing—the source of income of most solicitors—one could not get them to look at drafts. The experience in Northern Ireland shows that society outside—I am not referring to what happens in the House—may not pay much attention to the publication of a draft.
It may be argued that the intention behind the proposal is to link the draft to some procedure in the House providing for scrutiny. That may make the process operate differently. I hope that it does. What is needed is a change in the way in which proposals for legislation evolve, not just before the publication of the legislation in draft or otherwise, but even beyond that point.
There is no reference in the report to what I consider to be the greatest problem: the passion that exists in the public service for secrecy—for not divulging to interested persons, whether in the House or outside, the way in which the thinking is evolving as legislative proposals are being drawn up.
In many respects, the enactment of a freedom of information Bill would be more significant in achieving the objectives of the report than any of the proposals contained in the report itself. An obligation on the Government to divulge more information and to let people see more clearly the Government's thinking and the reasons why they are developing particular proposals is more important than the parliamentary procedures.
I am not decrying the proposal for draft Bills. There must be a procedure linked to the legislation that gives adequate time for the examination not only of individual clauses, but of the thinking behind it. I regard as extremely important the suggestion that a Select Committee or a Special Standing Committee should examine legislation before the traditional Committee stage. That might be done in a First Reading Committee, or after Second Reading if a Special Standing Committee were used.
It is important that such a procedure should provide an opportunity for the Committee to take evidence and to examine the thinking underlying the Bill, and that sufficient time should be allowed for that. Time is needed for members of the Committee to get to grips with the Bill, and for the Department to think.
If one tables amendments in a normal Standing Committee, the initial response from the Minister and the Department is to put up the shutters, not because they object to changes in the Bill, but because they need time to think. The Minister will never accept an amendment at first sight. He will need to take it back to his Department, and the Department may have to consult other Departments. There must be sufficient time for the Department to absorb the material and bring it back to the Committee. That is why we so often find that amendments tabled in this House are accepted in the other place. Between the two stages, the Government have had time to consider their response.
I strongly support the suggestions made in the report for procedures such as those that would follow from a Special Standing Committee or a Select Committee. They should be linked not to draft legislation, but to actual Bills, as that would concentrate the mind. There should be sufficient time between the hearings and the beginning of the usual Committee stage for hon. Members to study and absorb that material.
Paragraph 83 of the report, which relates to European legislation and UK delegated legislation, states:
Of crucial and growing importance is the need to ensure proper scrutiny of the other forms of legislation with which the House has to deal, namely European legislation and United Kingdom secondary legislation.
I was disappointed to find that it omitted all reference to primary legislation relating to Northern Ireland. That is a scandal. The right hon. Member for East Devon (Sir P. Emery) said that it was a crying disgrace when major parts of legislation go through the House without the clauses being examined and debated. That crying disgrace has applied to all primary legislation dealing with Northern Ireland for two decades.
Acres of Northern Ireland legislation have passed through the House without being debated or examined. I refer to primary legislation—Northern Ireland Orders in Council. On the current Order Paper, among the remaining orders to be considered are five Northern Ireland Orders in Council.
I remind hon. Members that, despite the use of the term Orders in Council, that is not delegated legislation. Northern Ireland Orders in Council are primary legislation, yet they will be enacted without being considered. There might be a brief debate in Committee, along the lines of a Second Reading debate, but, with few exceptions, Northern Ireland legislation is never subjected to Committee examination. That is a crying disgrace.
I shall not labour the point, except to say that we know that this Government will not have any better answer to the problem than the previous Government had. They were never able to justify the practice or put up any argument worth listening to. Ministers in the previous Government came to the Dispatch Box and brazened it out, year after year. Sadly, I think that the Labour Government will prove to be no better.
There is no excuse for substandard legislation. The existence of a separate statute book for Northern Ireland makes no more difference with regard to Northern Ireland


legislation than does the parallel situation with regard to Scottish legislation. A separate statute book in Scotland is maintained through normal legislation in the House. There is no excuse for what has happened for the past 20 years in respect of Northern Ireland legislation.
The problem must be dealt with. The report of the Hansard Society commission on the legislative process states in paragraph 363, which refers to the representations received from my colleagues and other parties:
We hope that their special problems will be considered sympathetically—especially the case for returning to legislating for Northern Ireland by Acts rather than by Orders.
That report was published in 1992. Unfortunately, the previous Government failed to give sympathetic consideration to that crying disgrace, as the Hansard Society recommended. The Modernisation Committee refers to that report, so I hope that it will follow the recommendations of the Hansard Society report.

Mrs. Ann Taylor: I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will give the Government credit for the assurance that he has been given that the Northern Ireland police Bill will be introduced in the House.

Mr. Trimble: Indeed. The assurance was given after considerable representations were made by myself and my colleagues and after the Northern Ireland Office first informed us that it was its intention to proceed by Order in Council. I agree, that after representations were made, there was a concession. 1 do not know how many Orders in Council are proposed for this year, but there are five on the Order Paper and up to 10 might come through during the Session.

Mrs. Taylor: I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will also agree that if measures are to be introduced by means of primary legislation in the House rather than by Orders in Council, which is what he is requesting, there will be some delay. The right hon. Gentleman is saying, in part, that Bills must be discussed in a proper way. He will understand that slots must be found for many different pieces of proposed legislation. The right hon. Gentleman must take into account the fact that there will be delays.

Mr. Trimble: That argument is not worthy of any attention. I am dealing with a matter of principle that turns on the enactment of primary legislation, and there is a proper procedure. Whatever the difficulties, there is no excuse for substandard procedure.
In any event, there is no substance in the right hon. Lady's argument, even in its own terms, because the bulk of Northern Ireland legislation is parity legislation. Only a handful of Northern Ireland primary Acts are unique to Northern Ireland, and the police Bill is one of them. Given the significance of the Bill, we made considerable representations to the Government for it to be enacted. I appreciate, of course, that the Bill will proceed in the proper way.
Most Orders in Council are what we call parity legislation. In substance, they are the same as legislation that is enacted in the House and they could be included in that process. That would not cause any difficulty.

A significant number of Bills that pass through the House deal with Great Britain and not only England and Wales. Scotland is also included. Given the different statute book in Scotland, there are schedules attached to many Bills that modify the proposed legislation for application in Scotland. There would be no difficulty in principle in applying that process to Northern Ireland legislation, although it would mean a different way of going about things.
There will be some difficulty in making the transition, but it can be made. That would not involve a significant addition to the time that is taken in this place producing legislation. It would not involve the time implications to which the Leader of the House referred.
I shall conclude—[[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I am tempted not to conclude, but I shall.
I wish to refer to something that the Leader of the House said when in opposition. It is a comment that I take from the helpful research paper that has been prepared by the Library. The right hon. Lady was talking of
the main project of re-engaging the gears of the political process in a fundamental way so that ordinary voters feel genuinely connected with the people who represent them.
I put a gloss on that in terms of the need to feel connected with those in this place who enact legislation.
Society in Northern Ireland is disconnected from the political and legislative processes and from the way in which the House proceeds. My colleagues and I have made considerable efforts over the past decade and a half to try to ensure that society in Northern Ireland is connected, informed and plugged into proceedings in Westminster. That is why we attach so much importance to ensuring that there is a Select Committee on Northern Ireland Affairs and a Northern Ireland Grand Committee. It is why we have also attached so much importance to arguing that proper legislation is enacted and that people in Northern Ireland have the same opportunity as those in the rest of the United Kingdom to express a view about proposed legislation.

Helen Jackson: I am happy to follow some of the remarks of the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble), because he has raised important issues about Northern Ireland legislation being properly considered, scrutinised and consulted on during our deliberations. I am sure that the Select Committee on Modernisation will wish to take his comments on board.
There is a narrow window of opportunity at the beginning of an historic new Parliament when a third of the Members are fresh and new. It is important to grasp the opportunity that is before us. With such a large influx of new Members, we are not necessarily talking about changing old habits; we are thinking about how best to deliver the legislative process. I congratulate the Chair of the Modernisation Committee on taking the initiative, pushing ahead with it and ensuring that a report was produced in July, thereby ensuring that the debate is taking place today.
I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) and the right hon. Member for South Norfolk (Mr. MacGregor), who were not members of the Committee, but who, in my view, put their fingers on the nub of the report, which is that we shall make progress in a variety of ways if we recognise the need for legislation to be programmed.
There must be a structure and a timetable, which could well involve rolling legislation over through more than one Session. As my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike) said, we are elected for a Parliament, and a parliamentary term is five years. We should be able satisfactorily to span what any Government want to do in five years and ensure the best use of our time. The crux of the report is making the best use of our time in the Chamber and in Committee and as individual Members.
We should, of course, have pride in the past and in how Parliament has grown up. I still take visitors to the third step in Westminster Hall and point to the plaque which represents the place where Parliament took control over the monarchy. It is an important point and that represents the pride that we need to have, as well as pride in stimulating debate and winning debates by argument.
The best tradition of this place is when we win our arguments in debate because we have a good case. That being so, it is important properly to programme, by agreement through the usual channels, rather than to filibuster, to delay and to introduce guillotines, which means that we are cut short and parts of proposed legislation are not properly considered. That is the crux of the report.
There are three important reasons why we should see the report as one step on the way to moving our constitution forward. The first reason is that Parliament needs to come to terms with the micro chip, which is revolutionising our lives in many ways. It is not impossible to do that. I am pleased that the Committee has taken on board the need to move forward with voting arrangements. As I said in Committee, few of us gain access to our cash by taking a cheque book to a bank before 3.30 pm, signing our name and asking for £50. We all use our plastic cards, go to a slot in the wall and get the cash much more quickly. I accept the need for us to come together to vote, but it would be easier, speedier and more convenient if we used the microchip. That is a small step, but I am sure that it would lead to other ways of using our time better.
Secondly, we have a new gender balance in the House. That has not been mentioned yet this afternoon, but, to the public outside, it is one of the most striking results of 1 May. Wherever one goes, people say that Parliament must be very different now. I sometimes thinks that it would be nice if it were a little more different than it sometimes seems to be. We need to make even further progress with that gender balance and recognise that that will lead to a different, more consensual style of debate with more concentration on an issue.
I support a 10-minute limit on speeches, but I do not agree that that will kill interventions because injury time can be attached, as in football matches. However, debating behaviour has been influenced by the new make-up of the House, which I welcome. That is another reason why we need to take the modernisation process further.
Thirdly, the public expect a lot from this new Parliament and from us as Members of Parliament. Those who have been Members of Parliament for a while have been embarrassed by reports of the public's low—sometimes rock bottom—opinion of us and our work. That needs to change. We need the respect from the public that we believe Parliament should have. We will not have that respect unless we bring our parliamentary procedures and behaviour into the 21st century.
In that regard, the most important issue is how to raise the status of all Committees—Standing Committees, Select Committees and scrutiny Committees. As many hon. Members have said, that is where the hard work is done and where many of the best debates take place. The answer is not to deal with everything on the Floor of House. The solution is within our grasp, and it is to raise the status of debates in Committees.
That may have an implication for the way in which the media views those Committees. Programmes such as "In Committee" will play their part in that. We may need more television cameras in all the Committee Rooms. If we are honest, it is what goes out on television and on the radio that people know about. I strongly support that. Many hon. Members have considered how to raise the status of scrutiny and I hope that the Committee will discuss that further.
The Modernisation Committee has been useful. We have had some interesting discussions. We cannot consider changing things without debate and that has sometimes led to philosophical discourse about what legislation is, what the House is for, what Government is, what the Opposition should be able to do to frustrate the Government, how minority parties should fit into a debating Chamber such as this, how the public should relate to the House and, finally but importantly, how Members of Parliament operate here while managing to keep for themselves a satisfactory existence, which is not always easy.
This is just the first of what I hope will be a useful series of reports from the Select Committee. I pay tribute to the President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons, my right hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor), and the right hon. Member for South-West Norfolk (Mrs. Shephard) for treating the issue so seriously and with such urgency.

Mr. Andrew Stunell: I am the 10th Member of the House to speak in the debate and the first of the new intake from 1 May, and it is from that one third of Members who are new to the House that much of the pressure for modernisation has come. However, it is encouraging to those new hon. Members on the Committee that hon. Members with much more experience than us share many of our concerns.
Earlier, the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) criticised the choice of trustees for the parliamentary contributory pension fund. New Members were seriously under-represented on the Modernisation Committee, but those of us who were there hope that we punched our weight on behalf of other new colleagues; if we failed, I am sure that they will let us know.
New Members bring to the House a perception of what it looks like from the outside, because, until recently, we were on the outside. If something is not broken, there is no need to mend it. But the outside world has a clear perception that Parliament does have defects which need to be remedied.
The quality of the law making is criticised by professional bodies and the general public. There is example after example. It is not just partisan legislation that has gone wrong—the poll tax is an example of partisan discussion failing to deal adequately with


technical defects—but legislation on which there has been consensus, of which the Child Support Act 1995 is an example. The quality of legislation is not determined by consensus or partisanship but by effectiveness. The Modernisation Committee was given figures showing the sheer number of Government amendments to their own legislation. When it comes to law making, there is a constant catching-up process.
The effectiveness of the monitoring of Departments and Ministers has also been criticised. That relates to the way in which Select Committees and the Chamber operate. The feeling that the accountability of Governments, Ministers and Departments, has declined in recent years was a driving force.
Before we consider too much the practical convenience of Members, we should remember that the House of Commons has a purpose, which is not necessarily the convenience of Members. I hope that those new Members on the Modernisation Committee were able to bring to it a sharper perception of what the outside world thinks as well as what hon. Members think.
That does not mean that the practical convenience of the House cannot be improved. I look forward to the discussions on the hours, the days and the calendar which lie ahead. I hope, too, that we can tackle some of the strange customs of the House which range from the trivial to the serious. One of my favourites is that when I tried to ask whether a Minister would or would not do something I was told that that parliamentary question was out of order because one cannot ask a Minister "whether", only "if'. Such trivial restrictions require some thought.
Much more serious than that are some of the issues mentioned by the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike). It is inconceivable to outsiders that our national legislature does not have a seat for each Member of Parliament. Surely no other trade or profession fails to provide people with a seat in which to do the job.

Mr. Martin Salter: The London underground.

Mr. Stunell: The hon. Gentleman makes a sound point. The hours, if not the rates of pay, are comparable.
The right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) has left the Chamber, but I wanted to deal with his practical point. To the best of my knowledge, he did not ask to be a member of the Modernisation Committee, and neither he nor any member of his party wrote or submitted briefings to it, so I was sorry to hear what he had to say about the level of representation that he had been able to secure.
The report is good as far as it goes. I welcome what it says about pre-legislative inquiries and draft Bills being put before Select Committees. The idea that Committees can participate in post-legislative monitoring to discover what has happened and to comment on it has not been mentioned much in the debate, but it will be important.
The timetabling provisions are sensible. No doubt some practical difficulties will have to be overcome, but they cannot be greater than the practical difficulties of spending several hours talking about clauses 1 and 2, and a few minutes on clauses 3 to 99.
I support the points that have been made about Select Committees, but I want to use my time wisely, so I shall move on to talk about the reform of our voting procedure. It is clear that there is scope for better procedures to be used. Not even my best friends would regard me as a friend of the silicon chip, but the House ought to make certain changes.
The hon. Member for Stockton, North (Mr. Cook) referred to the criticisms of the Chairmen's Panel. As he was unable to participate in some of the Committee's discussions, he may have missed some of the important points that have been made. Any speaking limit should allow for injury time to take account of interventions. We should not reduce the capacity of hon. Members to participate in a flowing debate.
The hon. Member for Stockton, North was critical of the proposal for a preliminary debate on whether a clause should stand part of a Bill followed by a discussion of the amendments. We dealt extensively with that matter in the Committee, but it is worth having a debate on a wider platform. If I were not keen to limit my remarks, I would expand on that, but perhaps the Committee could prepare a more structured and complete note for hon. Members, so that they are more fully aware of the arguments in support of that proposal.
I add my thanks to the Leader of the House for the way in which she has conducted the Committee. Today, she has skilfully worn two different hats: as Chairman of the Committee and as the person responding to the debate on behalf of the Government. I was particularly pleased that she mentioned two Bills that the Government intend will go through the draft Bill procedure.
Before the recess, I asked the Library to supply me with a list of previous recommendations and reports on reform and to identify those that have not been implemented. The Library said, "Are you sure that you know what you are asking for? How far back do you want to go"? I decided that I would go back 10 years. The reports that have not been implemented in the past 10 years make a substantial pile on my desk. I say to the Leader of the House, in her role as a representative of the Government, that sweet words in this debate and a couple of draft Bills are fine, but we need evidence of serious and sustained implementation by the Government of the proposals over which they have control.
That brings me to the future work of the Committee. I would be failing in my duty as a Liberal Democrat Member if I did not mention again the seating and shape of the Chamber, and the way in which it operates. Most people do not find the Houses of Parliament visitor friendly or family friendly; nor do they think that it delivers legislation efficiently, effectively and well. The work of the Modernisation Committee and of other Committees should be directed at correcting those perceptions and ensuring that the House has secure procedures that operate well, protect minority and opposition interests and deliver good government. If we put our minds to it, surely 659 of us could achieve that.
Combined action is required. No one has yet dared mention the other place, but we know that within the next five years fundamental reforms will take place at the other end of this building. That will perhaps give us an opportunity to consider how procedures in both Houses could interact more effectively in the future. If the Government are prepared to deal with fundamental


reforms at the other end of the building, I hope that they will not shy away from discussion and implementation of fundamental reforms at this end.
Action is required from a large number of hon. Members who serve on Committees. That effort should be made not only by the 15 members of the Modernisation Committee, who I hope will produce more reports in the future; there should also be a strong commitment from hon. Members who are not on the Committee.
All these good intentions could merely be added to that pile on my desk. We could come back in 10 years' time little further forward. I hope that the Government and all hon. Members will work together to avoid that happening.

Dr. Tony Wright: I can reassure the House that I shall make only a few general remarks as quickly as I can. They flow nicely from the remarks that the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Stunell) has just made.
As a student too many years ago, I was made to read "The Reform of Parliament" by Bernard Crick, which was published in 1964. Those who do not have time to read the book should read the preface, which says:
Parliamentary reform is one of those things, as Mark Twain remarked about the weather, which everybody talks about, but nobody does anything about. Seldom has there been so much public agreement that something should be done, but seldom so much private agreement that nothing is likely to be done.
I am afraid that that is the truth of the matter, and it explains the pile on the hon. Gentleman's desk.
It so happens that Bernard Crick—who I am glad to say is now my friend—is now devising the new procedures for the Scottish Parliament. It will be an interesting, innovative and modern place. This House will look extremely old-fashioned when the Scottish Parliament is established. It will be a challenge to this House to put its own procedures in order.
This may be the moment when we stop talking about reform and start doing something about it. That may be the importance of this debate. The House is full of new Members and is far more representative than ever before. It looks different, feels different and has a radical energy about it. If this House cannot do this job, no House ever will. That is the nature of the moment and the opportunity that we are discussing—at a time when we have a radical general programme of political and constitutional reform of which these proposals are a part. We said that we would reform the British political system, and we are doing so. We said that the reform of the House of Commons was an essential part of that, and it is. These proposals sit not as a separate item, but as part of a general reform programme.
Perhaps most remarkable of all—it helps to explain why nothing much has happened on this front before, and it is, perhaps, the greatest tribute to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House—is the fact that here are a Government who are helping along and engineering a series of measures that, if implemented, will make life more difficult for Ministers and for Governments. Here are a Government with the biggest majority in modern times, proposing a set of measures designed to make life—in some respects—more difficult for themselves. Why? I am afraid that the answer is that they believe in those measures. They believe that the time has come to

modernise British political institutions, and to modernise this institution critically. They believe that the quality of legislation and the public interest demand that reform must be made. Surprising as it may seem that this is the moment, it turns out to be the moment when reforms seem finally and seriously to be happening.
We know about the problem. We know that the way in which the House considers legislation is a scandal and a disgrace. It is the bit of the system that we dare not expose to public view. It is a good job that people do not know in detail what happens. We tell stories among ourselves about the horrors of Standing Committees, but we are glad that that is not the general verdict that is delivered on our performance.
Example after example has been given. A definitive account of the poll tax has been written. The poll tax was the greatest policy disaster of modern times. It cost £1.5 billion: that is the cost of error, equivalent to about 2p on the standard rate of income tax. Hon. Members should read a book by David Butler and his colleagues called "Failure in British Government", which takes apart the way in which the House looked at—or did not look at—the poll tax. If there were more time, I would go into the details; I will give hon. Members the headlines.
The Standing Committee was a futile marathon … the committee stage was mostly a matter of posturing … it was scrutiny by slogan and soundbite.
That can be replayed, Bill by Bill by Bill, Committee by Committee by Committee. That is why it is a scandal. That is why we are not discussing esoteric or internal issues. We are talking about the quality of legislation that affects the lives of all the people whom we represent. If we legislate badly, those people must live with the consequences—consequences that they will subsequently tell us about in our surgeries. That is why what we are talking about tonight matters; but it also forces us to ask why the change is not made. In essence, it is not made because of the way in which this place operates. Someone once described it as a permanent election campaign, and that is essentially what it is. There are good reasons why it should be that, but, if it is just that, it will not do what it has to do.
Yes, we all come here not because we carry wonderful individual virtues, but because we carry party labels; but, if we know only that, we shall never become Members of Parliament performing the functions that the textbooks say Members of Parliament should perform—functions that the House is supposed to perform. Enoch Powell once memorably said that there was no such thing as Parliament, only Government and Opposition. There is a terrible truth in that. What we have are Government and Opposition, locked into a permanent election campaign on the Floor of the House, in Committee and in every part of the system. The price that is paid for it just to be that is, I am afraid, the quality—or lack of quality—of the product that comes out.
We must reflect on the nature of the institution. We must ask why scrutiny is not rewarded—why there is no career structure in the House of Commons that rewards those who take scrutiny seriously; why the system is driven only by Whips and greasy poles; why there are not other avenues in which people of great talent and ability representing constituents can find a way of serving. I wish that the Modernisation Committee, to which I pay enormous tribute, had taken just a little time to say something rather more general about the importance of


Parliament as Parliament, and what its central functions were. It could then have gone on to say things about legislative reform.
We know what the reform agenda is; we have always known. For me, the most telling sentence in the report is this, in paragraph 15:
With one or two notable exceptions, such as the creation of "First Reading" Committees, the House could, if it so wished, do a great deal without a single amendment to Standing Orders.
The House has, over the years, invented ways of improving the process, but it has done nothing about them. The Special Standing Committee procedure is the best example of that.
We heard from the Opposition that they were against incorporating the European convention on human rights in our law. There was nothing to stop the House, over the years, from setting up a human rights committee. It could have scrutinised every piece of legislation to ensure that it was consistent with the convention, and with all our other human rights obligations. If it had done that, it would have more credibility in saying that we did not need to incorporate the convention because we had our own methods. But it did nothing of the kind: it showed no interest in such matters. That could have been done, but it was not done.
I have just two more things to say. First, I must express disappointment. I think that, on the question of constitutional Bills, the Committee sold the pass. I understand why: its members clearly could not agree. Those outside who have considered the matter seriously understand the need to ensure that constitutional Bills are not all caught by a doctrine casually invented in 1945—the doctrine involving Bills of first-class constitutional importance. No one can define them—no one knows what is a first-class, a second-class or a third-class Bill—but, simply for political reasons, it has been asserted that all such Bills must be taken on the Floor of the House.
I do not think that at all sensible. We have made great progress on the Finance Bill by taking some of its clauses in Standing Committee and some on the Floor of the House. Doing that improves the quality of scrutiny. Was not the Local Government Act 1985, which abolished the Greater London council and swept away metropolitan counties, a Bill of first-class constitutional importance? But it was not taken on the Floor of the House.
When I first came to the House, 1 sat on the Committee considering the Right to Know Bill of 1993, a private Member's Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher). It was an excellent Committee stage, in which hon. Members on both sides participated fully. We knew that the Government would kill the Bill at the end of the day, but, my goodness, it was a good Committee. No one could pretend that the process would have been improved if the Bill had been taken on the Floor of the House, but I suspect that we shall be told that such Bills are of first-class constitutional importance, and therefore cannot be treated in that way. We should look at the end that we want, which is improved scrutiny, and not play political games with the process.
Let me now come to the heart of what I wanted to say. The Committee has come up with a menu. It has said that there are a variety of devices whereby the legislative

process could be improved: ad hoc Select Committees, Special Standing Committees, Second Reading Committees and First Reading Committees. That is the menu from which we can choose. The question is: will it happen?
Three things are required for it to happen: first, a Leader of the House who is radical, energetic, innovative and wants to lead, and I think that we have that; secondly—this is the crucial point—Ministers and civil servants with Ministers who are prepared to expose their Bills to the menu of scrutiny that the Committee is proposing. That is the most challenging point of all. Thirdly, the Opposition need to understand that scrutiny can be constructive and not merely oppositional. We shall find out soon whether those all conditions are in place. The public interest requires that they are.
In every other area of life, we search for common ground. We seek to arrive at decisions by going from positions of difference to a position of common ground. This institution is different because, laser-like, it searches for disagreement. That is what makes this place distinctive. That is why people have lost confidence in it and rumbled it. That is why we say that any talk of a new politics means doing politics differently in this place too.

Mr. Christopher Gill: During this interesting debate, several references have been made to the record number of new Members in this Parliament. I compliment many of them on having the fortitude to sit through this debate and I am sure that the House looks forward to hearing their comments on these important issues.
I am reminded of my feelings on being elected to the House 10 years ago. I felt that the whole procedure was archaic and that working methods, the conditions that we endured and the hours were unacceptable. Many a time, I would remonstrate with the then Leader of the House, my right hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk (Mr. MacGregor). I now realise, however, that I was somewhat impetuous. As time progressed, I realised that evolution, rather than revolution, was important in the House of Commons and that we should, as far as possible, try to make existing systems work better.
In reaching an understanding of what we are about, it is important that we should remind ourselves of the exact role of the Back Bencher. It is not necessarily to support the Executive; indeed, it is the opposite. Our role is to control the Executive—to hold it to account. There is a distinction between the role of the Government in getting their business through and the role of Back Benchers in ensuring that the Government do not run roughshod over the rights of Back Benchers and of the people whom they represent.
Hon. Members are a vital component of our democracy. We are the people who are charged with the responsibility of balancing the aspirations of people whom we represent and the ambitions of the Executive, who may, from time to time, have an entirely different agenda.
We would all be wise to note the words of the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon), who drew attention to the fact that the power of the Opposition was the time that they have historically enjoyed in the House. He said that that time had been severely curtailed


and made the valid point that we all had a right to put our view and to be heard. It is a long-standing feature of our parliamentary democracy that opposition should be heard.
My right hon. Friend the Member for South-West Norfolk (Mrs. Shephard) rightly chided the Government for having ridden somewhat roughshod over Parliament in introducing various measures. The Labour party must realise, as any democrat would, that all hon. Members are elected and deserve to, and must, be heard. It would perhaps not be amiss for the new Government to realise that fewer people voted for them than for all the other parties represented in the House, so a majority of the electorate did not vote for the Government.
Indeed, it is unusual for a Government to command more than 50 per cent. of the votes cast at a general election, but that is not my point. Notwithstanding the fact that they have a huge majority, they have to allow time for hon. Members who represent the millions of people who voted differently to put their case, to argue with the Government in debate and to challenge features of their policies that we feel should be challenged.

Mr. Salter: I always find it bewildering when Conservative Members talk about the proportion of votes. Do I take it that the hon. Gentleman supports electoral reform and will back proportional representation?

Mr. Gill: The hon. Gentleman misunderstands the point that I am trying to make, which is simple. The fact that the Labour Government have a majority of 179 in this Parliament does not mean that they can push through their legislation without regard to the legitimate views of other Members, who have been elected by a substantial number of votes. On 1 May, more people in the UK voted for parties other than the Labour party. The point at issue is that, if our system is to be in any way democratic, the representatives of the people have to have an opportunity to put their view and to be heard. The right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne was right.
I welcome the report's conclusions in paragraph 91, although I note the comments by the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) on the experiences in Northern Ireland. I have been a long-term advocate of channelling legislation through Select Committees, because they could enormously improve legislation. I remind the House that the departmental Select Committees are relatively new. They were instituted in 1979, when the Conservative party had just formed a new Government, in much the same way as the Labour party has just taken the reins of office.
The advantage in referring draft legislation to Select Committees is that the legislation would be considered at an early stage by a group of people who would have built up expertise in the appropriate sector. More to the point—this may apply more to Labour than to Opposition Back Benchers—if draft legislation were channelled through departmental Select Committees, Committee members would have greater job satisfaction. They would feel that they were doing something worth while and contributing to something that had a future—legislation that would progress through the House and eventually be enacted. The benefits would be not just to Members of Parliament, but to the general public and the people whom we represent. I believe that that process would mean that we had a more transparent system of consultation.
Government Departments currently assure us that consultation is carried out with appropriate bodies before legislation is brought to the House. However, we have no way of knowing how thorough that consultation has been and, without many searching questions, we cannot find out who has been consulted. One is wary of the fact that Departments and Ministers are busy and that consultation may not have taken place with all those who might wish to have some input into the legislation. Through the Select Committee procedure there is scope for following up any matters arising from the evidence taken. All that would give rise to better legislation and, more to the point, would save time, not just on the Floor of the House but in Standing Committees.
There has already been reference to the number of amendments being presented to much of the legislation that has come before the House. Sometimes, the number has been unacceptably high. That is a great indictment of the way in which the legislation reached that stage.
I am tempted to say that we have too much legislation. When it comes to ordering the business of the House, the Executive might consider bringing less legislation before us so that the legislation that they do present can be given more time and be considered in more detail. In that way, the legislation reaching the statute book would be better.
In advocating the role of departmental Select Committees in considering draft legislation, I do not want to detract in any way from their important work of scrutinising Government Departments. I commend the suggestion in the report that they should have a role in monitoring recent legislation; in other words, that there should be a follow-up procedure for legislation once it has been enacted. Nor do we want to lose sight of the vital role of Select Committees in investigating matters of public interest on an ad hoc basis.
The important matter of debating Select Committee reports on the Floor of the House has been mentioned. Too few of their reports come to the House and hon. Members, certainly those who serve on those Committees, would like to think that there will be a greater opportunity for the result of their labours to be discussed on the Floor of the House at some stage.
Different views have been expressed about the paragraph in the report which refers to carrying over legislation from one Session to the next. A former Leader of the House, my right hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk, said that he thought that that was a good thing, but my right hon. Friend the Member for East Devon (Sir P. Emery) disagreed with him. I find myself in agreement with my right hon. Friend the Member for East Devon. If Governments have the scope to roll over legislation into the next Session, it would cut across the points made so ably by the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne. Time is of the essence for the Opposition and we would be forfeiting one of the essential rights of the Opposition if we allowed the Government to roll over legislation.

Dr. Phyllis Starkey: As another newly elected Member who was a member of the Select Committee, I must say that that membership has been a fascinating experience and has given me a crash course at least in the theory of current parliamentary procedures. I am grateful to the more experienced members of the Committee who have been forbearing in


explaining the complexity of the procedures to me. I hope that all my fellow new Members have read the report and that they keep by them the handy chart in the report, which is the clearest exposition of all the different options available to us to exploit the procedures of the House to try to make it more effective.
Members of the public watching Parliament on television must be forgiven for thinking that the most important parts of the work of the House of Commons are questions to the Prime Minister and other Ministers. Holding Ministers to account is crucial, but the major output of Parliament is legislation. If that legislation is faulty, it can have a highly significant effect on people's lives, as was pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase (Dr. Wright).
I am not against referring to hon. Members by their constituency, but I would find it easier if the annunciator gave our constituency in brackets under our name. That would allow us to listen to the debate instead of having to scrabble around in text books trying to find out the constituencies of various hon. Members. That is an example of the way in which the traditions of the House interfere with debate rather than facilitate it.
I believe that the key aims of the recommendations made in the report are to improve the effectiveness of Parliament and Members of Parliament and to improve the quality of legislation. Those two things are interlinked. The shadow Leader of the House, the right hon. Member for South-West Norfolk (Mrs. Shephard), talked about the red heat of political debate and about this being a continuous election campaign. We have all been elected as party political people and we all have deeply held and passionate party political views. It would be naive to try to deny that.
We should accept that two different things take place within the legislative process. The first is the argument in principle about the aims of a Bill. That will always be party political and will sometimes involve debates between factions within individual parties. The second part of the legislative process is discussion of the detail of the legislation—the detail which is vital to make it work. The recognition of that split is crucial.
It is not helpful if any alteration to a Bill, however minor, is seen as a defeat for the Government. A defeat on the principle of a Bill would be a defeat for the Government, but improvements to the detail can be made by Opposition Members and by Government Back Benchers and following suggestions from outside organisations. We should not engender an atmosphere in which the Government try to defend everything. I believe that acceptance of constructive amendments is a sign of strength in a Government, not a sign of weakness.
The Opposition should be able to oppose a Bill in principle and then, having lost the vote on that—that will inevitably happen in this Parliament—they should make constructive suggestions about how to make the Bill work, even if they do not agree with it in the first place. That is why I believe that in Committee it should be possible first to take a vote on the principle of a clause, allowing the Opposition to make their point, and then to go on to discuss the detailed implementation of the Bill. The Opposition could then make positive and constructive comments without that being taken as support for the

principle of the Bill. Those somewhat detailed proposals are incredibly important if we are to make this place work more effectively.
Another important aspect of making this place work more effectively is to ensure that we fully use the wide range of expertise of Members of Parliament and the external organisations that try to give advice to the House. That would all help to achieve better quality legislation. That is why I support the proposals on draft legislation and for a much more imaginative use of Committees, including pre-legislative Committees, and for a more deliberative and less confrontational style of debate in those Committees.
As I have said, Parliament now has a large number of Members with a huge range of expertise, and we must use that effectively. Like the right hon. Member for South Norfolk (Mr. MacGregor), my personal preference is for having ad hoc pre-legislative and Special Standing Committees rather than departmental Select Committees for pre-legislative work. That would diffuse work among Members, rather than concentrating it. Members with specialist knowledge, such as on pensions, sometimes do not serve on the relevant Select Committee.
My second point—it is very late and I have not eaten for hours, so perhaps I have lost track and it is my third point—is about programming. Programming of legislation is extremely important. It is important that it is tailored to each Bill. Some Bills do not require much detailed discussion and should be whipped through Committee. Others may need a lot of detailed discussion and should have many Committee sittings. Programming will allow time for the parts of each Bill that need full discussion to be fully discussed. It will stop the time wasting on relatively uncontentious parts of a Bill, which I am led to believe occurs under the present procedure.
Programming is also important because it helps individual Members to use their time most effectively. It brings a certain predictability to the legislative process, which not only is advantageous to individual Members but helps to achieve effective scrutiny. If Members can plan their time more effectively, they are likely to be better prepared when issues that they believe are important are debated and when they take part in such debates.
I refute the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton, North (Mr. Cook), who seemed to think that programming was all about accelerating the progress of Bills. That is not necessarily so. Programming is about accelerating through parts that do not need much discussion and giving time to parts that do need it.
I accept that, to begin with, discussions on programming will have to take place through the usual channels, but I hope that, in future, that process becomes less opaque. I do not think that the usual channels are entirely consistent with the transparency that most of us espouse.
The Modernisation Committee will discuss the conduct of debate. I want to make two points. First, hon. Members with some experience tend to wax lyrical about the virtue of debate in the House and the importance of its cut and thrust. It really does not encourage Members from the 1997 intake to take part in debates when the custom of the House is to keep such Members waiting until everybody else has spoken—unless one is lucky enough to be a member of a party that has very few representatives, in which case one is advanced up the order. The House needs to take note of that. It is also a fact that most of my hon. Friends and I have been


listening with patience to our more senior colleagues, yet few of them have had the courtesy to wait and listen to what we wish to say.
My second point arises from my experience in the Chamber yesterday during Prime Minister's Question Time. I really wondered whether any Opposition Members—none of those whom I particularly noticed and about whom I am about to complain is present—had any understanding of the way in which our behaviour is perceived by the public. Of course I understand that it is the role of Opposition Members—they are absolutely justified in that role—robustly to question Ministers and try to demonstrate what they perceive are Government errors, but the yelling, the gesturing and the frankly boorish behaviour which seems to have become traditional simply give the impression of a barrack room rather than a serious attempt to hold the Government to account. It brings the House into disrepute—and that is played back every weekend when I speak to people in my constituency.

Sir Patrick Cormack: Does the hon. Lady accept that such behaviour did not begin on 1 May?

Dr. Starkey: I accept that absolutely. Obviously, I was not in the House before 1 May. The fact that such behaviour may have gone on before is absolutely no excuse for it continuing. This is a new Parliament. The public have a new attitude to politicians; it is not one of much respect. All of us—both new and old Members—must live up to our responsibility to try to rehabilitate Parliament in the eyes of the public. I do not absolve some of my hon. Friends from some of the boorish behaviour.
I very much hope that the report's recommendations on the legislative process are accepted and rapidly put into effect. I very much hope that this is just the start of a modernisation of Parliament that will renew the public's interest and confidence in what we all do as Members of Parliament.

Mr. Bob Laxton: I am pleased to be able to participate in this debate. I say to the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Stunell) that it has not taken fortitude for me to remain in the Chamber throughout the debate. As a new Member of Parliament, I have found it interesting and informative. This debate has given me the opportunity to make my maiden speech.
I was proud and privileged to be elected to the House on 1 May for a number of reasons—one being that I hail from the city of Derby. I was born there and have lived and worked there all my life. Prior to being elected, I served for about 18 years—at times it seemed longer—as an elected member of Derby city council. I therefore believe that I bring to the House a great knowledge and considerable experience of the concerns, worries and aspirations of the electors of the city of Derby.
I also know some of the reasons why newcomers to the city of Derby grow to love the place. Derby has been described over the years as the biggest village in England. It has a population of about 250,000. On occasions, however, it takes me a couple of hours to travel a few hundred yards through the city centre. The people are very friendly, want to exchange views with me, seek my opinions and of course, on many occasions, bend my ear.
The political history of Derby is quite interesting. The seat of Derby, North came into existence only in 1950. Prior to that, since—I am advised–1299, Derby sent two Members of Parliament from one constituency, the longest serving Member of Parliament being the late Lord Noel Baker, who had a most distinguished parliamentary and international career.
On a statistical note, over the past century Derby has returned 16 men to Westminster, which is perhaps a somewhat dubious tradition for me to continue. It is dubious because I am pleased to say that, as a result of the election, we have so many women in this Parliament.
One reassuring statistic, which enlivens me fairly considerably, is that the average age of the previous 16 Members of Parliament at their death was 80.5 years and five of them were nonagenarians. Representing Derby, North obviously prolongs life. Subject to the vagaries of the election process, I might be around for a while.
The election on 1 May was my second attempt to win the constituency of Derby, North for the Labour party. I also contested it in 1992. I pay tribute to my predecessor, Greg Knight, whom I always found a most friendly and approachable parliamentarian. He rose to a position of some influence in the Conservative Government, perhaps as a result of his almost total loyalty to the their policies. However, if he had been given the opportunity on 28 November to vote on the Wild Mammals (Hunting with Dogs) Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr. Foster), I feel sure that he would have supported it, because he felt especially strongly about that issue and had voted accordingly on previous occasions.
One of the difficulties Greg experienced as the Deputy Chief Whip of the Conservative was being termed, affectionately, "silent Knight", because he could not contribute to debates. It was only during the later stages of his parliamentary career, from late 1996 onwards, when he became a Minister and started to spread his wings a little, that he became more well known in the city that he had ably served for the previous 14 years.
Greg took the seat 14 years ago from my friend and colleague Phillip Whitehead, who will be remembered by many hon. Members with affection. I am pleased to say that he continues to represent the interests of Derby's citizens in the new, redefined European constituency. He continues to do an excellent job on behalf of his constituents.
Derby has been supported by two industrial pillars—the aerospace and rail industries. Rolls-Royce Aerospace is enjoying a resurgence, and only today the Government announced that its bid for funds to develop its large engine range has been agreed. The total sum will amount to up to £200 million and I am delighted to have had the opportunity, since May, to play some small part in ensuring that that money has been made available. It will give Rolls-Royce the opportunity to develop large engines for the new range of larger jets produced by Boeing and British Aerospace. Rolls-Royce is at the leading edge of technology and the money will enable the company to seize a greater share of the world market with its Trent engine.
The rail industry, however, has a somewhat sadder history. Many of us were greatly concerned by the previous Government's rail privatisation proposals,


mainly because while the legislation was being completed, the rail manufacturing industry suffered a complete vacuum of orders. As a result, the United Kingdom rail industry started to collapse and in York, for example, all rail manufacturing activity ceased. I pay tribute to the Swedish—not English—senior management of Asea Brown Boveri, now Adtranz, who stuck with Derby through a lean period when no orders came in for three years. The company has managed to stay in Derby and kept the core work force and design team together. Only a few days ago, I visited Wembley at the company's invitation to look at the new train it has designed and built for Chiltern Railways. Adtranz is on the way back, and not before time.
Derby, North is the commuter area of the city and, because of the two main pillars of aerospace and rail manufacturing, most people who live there have worked, work or will work—again, in some cases—for those industries. The city is doing reasonably well and has attracted many small and medium enterprises that are doing especially well. I have to say—and not only as a previous leader of Derby city council—that that success is due in no small measure to the combined efforts of the city council, Derbyshire county council, the private sector, Derby university, and many other agencies. All those bodies have worked together in close partnership to ensure that we sell Derby as a city of the future, through the Derby city partnership, which has proved to be a great success.
It would be remiss of me, and I would probably face justified criticism, not to refer to the role that Derby's sporting activities are now playing on the national and international stage. Some people would say that Derby County football club—the Rams—has perhaps the most international team in the land, and it is doing well in the premier league. I played some part in the club's move from the old Baseball ground to a new, state-of-the-art, 30,000-seat stadium at Pride park. I am delighted that the club is getting capacity audiences there. I also pay tribute to the foresight of the club's directors, who went out on a financial limb to fund the project, and I wish the club well in the future.
I shall now turn to the modernisation process that we are debating. After 18 years in local government, one learns to study legislation—and its legal interpretations—closely and I have always said that the devil is in the detail. For example, paragraph 4(iii)(a) of the Afghan light railway act 1726 will be the bit that causes endless confusion. It is the detail that stops people doing what they want to do. On my arrival in the House, I found it interesting to examine the Order Paper in some detail. Despite my extensive experience in interpreting legislation, again as a result of my time in local government, the Order Paper defeated me very early. Of course, a number of colleagues assured me that they understood it perfectly, but it took only a few nanoseconds of questions before they decided to terminate our conversation. I quickly concluded that they understood it little better than I did, although some of them had been Members of Parliament for many years. I am delighted that we have already ensured that the Order Paper is more readily understandable, because that is immense progress.
The programming of legislation is also important. Even from my limited experience in the House, I have concluded that we need to try to ensure some certainty in the legislative process and its timing. I note from the report that the Modernisation Committee intends to consider the balance between the times when the House sits and the recesses, although it has not discussed that issue yet. That is long overdue. Many of us found it strange to work here for three months and then to leave for three months. When we came back, the learning process had to start again. Establishing a better balance between the periods when the House is in recess and when it is sitting would be to the advantage of us all.
I welcome the Modernisation Committee's report. From my limited experience, I have seen that we must be forward-looking and move from the 17th or 18th century at least some way towards the 21st. Many colleagues have made excellent points about the way in which we are perceived by the public, who find some of our customs archaic. I have no great difficulty with some of the customs and practices of the House—I am not someone who wants to come in and turn the applecart upside down. Some of our customs are amusing, some are interesting and some are a little quirky, but they do not get in the way of the legislative process. I am pleased that the Committee is looking at that process. We need to home in on that, and not the customs and practices, which are part of the tradition of the House and should be retained. We must home in on the legislative process and bring it up to a modern standard that befits the 21st century.

Mr. Martin Salter: I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Derby, North (Mr. Laxton) on his maiden speech and commend him for his patience not only tonight, but for waiting for what must be a proud moment. I commend him also for his commitment to Derby, its people and its football club. I have spent many a sad hour at Reading football club watching Derby hammer my poor chaps into the ground. I hope for my hon. Friend's sake that Derby does not have to face Reading again and that Derby has a more succesful period in the premiership than Reading would have done had it beaten my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House's side, Bolton Wanderers—a fact of which she cruelly reminded me when she responded to my maiden speech.
It is good to see representatives from local government here in the House. One of the great features of the massive intake of new Labour Members—I am looking at my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, South-West (Dr. Starkey)—is that it is good to see hon. Members who have had experience of running and delivering services. The confidence that my hon. Friend the Member for Derby, North showed in delivering his maiden speech shows that he is not intimidated by this large council chamber. I wish him well for the future.
It is important that new Members contribute to this important debate on the modernisation of the House of Commons and of our democracy in general. We may not bring new ideas, but we do bring a fresh approach. A Government Whip said to me not long ago that the problem with this place is that once people get into a position where they are able to change things, they do not want to because they have become accustomed to the


place and its quirks, traditions and crazy hours of working. Perhaps in five years' time I might not say what I wish to say now—which is why I want to say it now.
I am conscious that the Government Whips are anxious that we should not speak for too long as they want to go home. I have already made some points in my maiden speech. I commend the work of the Modernisation Committee, particularly on the revised Order Paper. It is wonderful to have an Order Paper that is written in English and can be understood by members of the press and the public. I am pleased that we are looking at the legislative process and I commend in particular page vi of the report, where the nine essential requirements of a reformed system are listed.
Members of the parliamentary Labour party need no reminder that, as far back as 1994, we formulated radical and definitive policies for reform of the House of Commons. It would be nice to see many of these reforms in place before the end of the Parliament. To build on the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Derby, North, as we approach the new millennium, it would be nice to think that we could drag ourselves kicking and screaming into the 20th century—that way we will be only 100 years behind the times, rather than 300.
Before senior Members misinterpret my comments, I must say that I believe that it is a tremendous privilege to serve as a Member of Parliament. We have much in our traditions of which we can be proud, but much of our procedure is ridiculous, arcane, irrelevant and disconnects us from the real world. I shall give some examples, although I do not wish to touch on points mentioned by other hon. Members. At present, large areas of the House of Commons are no-go areas for the elderly and the disabled. The current ridiculous rules prevent our having something simple like a cup of tea with constituents who come here unless we take them out on to the Terrace, where it is freezing in winter.
I welcome the fact that the Committee will look at the timetabling of business so that Members can plan their diaries more effectively. I welcome the fact that we now receive the provisional timetable for two weeks ahead, but I urge the Committee to look at planning legislation and the business of the House for three weeks ahead so we can plan constituency engagements and our time better.
I strongly support the case for a change in our working hours. I would, wouldn't I, because I am a Member from the home counties. I recognise that Members from the north, or those with business interests, may like the current system, but is it not possible for the core hours of the House of Commons to be from 11 am to 7 pm? Is it not possible for Select Committees to sit in the evening, making it easier for the public to attend and for us to plan a more sensible working day? Such an arrangement would make it possible for Members to have some element of family life, which seems taboo in this place—certainly to judge from the number of divorces.
I am at a loss to understand the value of the pairing system. I see my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Rutherglen (Mr. McAvoy), a Government Whip, nodding; perhaps he is too. I fail to see how we can pair with an Opposition party whose numbers do not equal our majority. Perhaps the pairing system has had its day and we can look at a more radical system, such as proxy voting. If it is okay for my grandmother to have a proxy

vote if she is unwell, I should have thought that it must be okay for Members of Parliament. I hope such suggestions are not heresy.

Sir Patrick Cormack: They are.

Mr. Salter: I am sure that they are to the hon. Gentleman.
In the context of a Government with a massive majority—the largest since 1832—there is a need to re-examine the role of Back Benchers. One thing I learned from my time in local government is that it is important for Administrations with large majorities to give the troops something to do. Would it be so harmful—would it threaten the Executive—if Back Benchers were allowed to gain time on the Floor of the House if, for example, they gained the support of 30 or 40 per cent. of Members of all parties for an early-day motion? I understand that that was a convention some years ago.
There should be a time limit on speeches. I am not sure that the delaying tactic used by the Opposition is particularly effective, and I am not sure what is achieved by a filibuster. I am not sure what we have to lose by time-limiting speeches and letting more Members get in. I certainly believe that Select Committees should be allowed to have at least one report of their choice debated on the Floor of the House in any 12-month period. My limited, recent experience has shown me that time should be available for private Members' legislation. Perhaps if that were the case, we would not have a problem with the forthcoming private Member's Bill to end the barbaric sport of hunting with hounds.
Since I was privileged to be elected a Member of Parliament, my opinion that the job of representing 70,000 people is a full-time job and that there is no excuse for Members to have paid employment outside has been confirmed. We are adequately paid.
I took the liberty of having a trawl through the Register of Members' Interests. The first Hamilton that I looked up is no longer a Member of Parliament, so I can mention him by name. His entry was not especially informative, but perhaps that is why he is no longer with us. The right hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Sir A. Hamilton) lists seven remunerated directorships, has five remunerated employment opportunities and, like all of us, represents between 60,000 and 70,000 people. We do our constituents no service by being in thrall to two masters.
Various publications have been cited, as much that what we talk about is not new. I commend to the House a small pamphlet, "Reinventing Democracy", written about three years ago by my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen). It is short and precise and encapsulates much of what we have said tonight and much of what the Select Committee already has in its work programme.
I believe that the Select Committee has made a tremendous start, but there is a long, long way to go before we make the changes necessary to re-establish the credibility of this mother of Parliaments in the eyes of the nation.

Mr. John Cryer: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Derby, North (Mr. Laxton) on his maiden speech, which was excellent, and I am glad that


Derby County is doing so well in the league. I have supported Leeds all my life, so my life has been an echoing void in many ways.
The Select Committee's first report has dealt largely with the programming of legislation. In the Tea Room and the Lobbies I have heard the argument that the timetabling of legislation represents an attack on the rights and powers of Back Benchers. I have my doubts. Timetabling exists anyway: if memory serves, we have had two or three guillotines in this Parliament, and we had 50 or 60 in the previous Parliament. That is timetabling in a fairly haphazard way and the recommendations merely take it a few stages further.
I have grave doubts about timetabling on the Floor of the House, but, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) said, timetabling in Committee hands more power to Back Benchers, because there is more incentive for them to speak and the Government do not put pressure on them there not to speak or to keep their comments brief, which happens in the Chamber under Governments of whatever political complexion.
The real attacks on Back Benchers' power took place in the 12 or 14 years before 1 May 1997. That is when hours were cut and the ability of Opposition Back Benchers to keep the Government up all night was curtailed. I can think of one or two former and current Labour Back Benchers who were very good at that. People no longer speak on money resolutions, for example.
I suspect that the Conservatives, under whose aegis those powers were taken away, now regret it. Perhaps they thought that they would never be in opposition again. They certainly do not have the powers that we enjoyed for many years on the Opposition Back Benches.
The shadow Leader of the House mentioned policy pronouncements through press releases and newspaper columns. That is nothing new; policy pronouncements should be made on the Floor of the House, but there has been a slide in the other direction for the past 20 years, as I believe Madam Speaker pointed out on another occasion.
There was a great deal of talk in the previous Parliament—it has been coming back over the past few weeks—about cutting hours and making them more relevant. I do not see how we could do that, as hours have already been cut drastically. Twenty years ago, the House used to sit until 2 am or 3 am a couple of times a week. We may be glad that that does not happen any more, but it is hard to see how we could cut hours even more. How can we get 17 Bills through this Session if we cut hours? That will not work.
We must remember that in the real world people face longer hours, less pay, shorter holidays and less sick pay, yet Members of Parliament talk about working fewer hours, and last year they voted themselves a 30 per cent. pay increase. That does not go down brilliantly with people who face increasing difficulties at work.
I find it incredible that we cannot get the Wild Mammals (Hunting with Dogs) Bill through, yet we have just been away for three months. There is a slight contradiction there. We should bear it in mind that at the

most recent general election, 12 million people failed to vote, compared with 9 million at the previous one. There is increasing alienation from the democratic political process.
More and more people feel deeply cynical about what goes on here. Talk about cutting hours, lengthening holidays and raising pay will only make people feel even more that the House is irrelevant. People outside face problems that Members of Parliament, on £43,000 a year minimum, will never face, unless they are defeated, as quite a few were recently.
My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House mentioned alternative voting methods. I am glad to hear that there is unanimity on the Select Committee that voting will still take place here. The method of voting as it stands is pretty effective. As a new Member, I have found that it is possible to buttonhole Ministers in the Lobby, but nowhere else. Any encouragement to stay away, especially for Ministers, would be a bad thing.
Right now, the Chamber is almost empty; there is no danger of anyone getting killed in the crush to get in. When I had an Adjournment debate, the Conservative Benches were completely empty. Perhaps no Conservative Members were interested in what I had to say, although I thought that the subject, the funding and administration crisis in further education, was important. There were not many people on the Government Benches, either.
I remind hon. Members of one Colonel Sir Walter de Frece, a Conservative Member of Parliament in the 1920s and 1930s, who lived in some luxury in a palace in Monte Carlo and came to the House only twice a year, on Budget day and when Ascot was on. He had the reputation of being quite a good constituency Member, because he signed blank sheets of House of Commons notepaper and his secretary filled in the rest. Push-button voting would lead to such people raising their heads again.
I welcome some changes made since 1 May. For instance, the new Order Paper has made a great difference. It is now written in English, which is helpful. I also welcome the change in Prime Minister's Question Time. No Labour Member would accuse me of being a careerist, but I think that that has been a very beneficial change.
If the Prime Minister is under the spotlight for only a quarter of an hour, he can virtually bluff it, get out in a trice and think, "Thank Christ for that, I've got away with it." Of course, our Prime Minister never thinks that. Being under the spotlight for half an hour exposes him to far greater Opposition scrutiny, if the Opposition are up to providing it.
A radical innovation that would greatly help new Members would be the end of the Privy Council. I see no reason for prolonging its rights. Membership gives rights to some senior Back Benchers who were Ministers but not to others. New Members have to wait for hours to speak. The longest that I have waited to take part in a debate was seven hours, and I did not get called at the end of it.
I accept that there must be some process of seniority, but the Privy Council means that some senior Back Benchers who are Privy Counsellors can come in, make a quick speech and leave the Chamber, while other senior Back Benchers have to sit around with the rest of us for four, five or six hours before speaking. There is a certain inequality in that.
Two previous speakers said that there should be more co-operation in the Chamber, that we should all cuddle up together. I am dubious about that. If I had sat on the Standing Committee that considered the poll tax legislation, which was mentioned earlier, I would have said that the tax was an evil attack on the poorest and most vulnerable in society and that we should sling it out. That was what the people did out there. It was not done in here, but it was done out in the country. They slung it out. I am not going to smile on cuddling up to Conservative Members whom I have spent my life trying to get out.
My final point concerns outside interests. As my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, West (Mr. Salter) said, outside interests go down badly with people outside, who often face lower wages and longer hours. When the public see hon. Members with eight, nine or 10 directorships earning a fortune—the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke), if memory serves, picked up a job on £100,000 with Barclays de Zoete Wedd—they find it obscene. It must end. Fortunately, the result on 1 May has by itself made a difference to political culture. Labour Members want to be here because they believe in public service and in restoring honour and respect to the post of Member of Parliament. Too many Conservative Members came here to line their pockets with directorships, adviserships and consultancies.

Ms Jenny Jones: I am grateful for the opportunity to contribute to the debate. I, too, congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Derby, North (Mr. Laxton) on his maiden speech.
Like other new Members, I hope that my remarks will not be considered presumptuous. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House and her Committee on their work so far and on producing the report, which I have read. I found the chart at the back helpful. I also find the new Order Paper helpful, as do other hon. Members.
The Leader of the House said that she was inviting us to state our priorities. I am going to take up her invitation, although I suspect that I shall add to the long list of demands and requests for the Committee to work its way through. I gather that the Committee will in the next few weeks consider the conduct of debates. Timed speeches have been mentioned several times. I wish to refer especially to timed speeches on the Floor.
I am at pains to emphasise that I am not asking the Committee to consider timed speeches in the interest of speed. I agree with other hon. Members that speeding up legislation can be bad. Scrutiny is important. There have been examples of bad legislation that was speeded through the House with disastrous effects. As has been said, it is our electorate who must live with bad legislation. I raise timed speeches in the interest of the quality of debate.
Like other hon. Members, I come from a local authority background. As in most council chambers, we had timed speeches. Timing can vary and be quite flexible. I am not arguing for five or 10-minute speeches but for a mechanism that encourages hon. Members to be succinct and concise. The most valuable thing about timed speeches is that they enable as many people as possible to get into the debate. The way things stand, hon. Members are called by order of seniority, which we all understand, and in the interest of getting the right cross-party political mix.
I know that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and Madam Speaker work hard to try to fit us all in. I by no means I decry that, but in debates when many hon. Members want to speak, some cannot get in. By the nature of things, that tends to affect Back Benchers, especially newer Members. Apart from the frustration of hon. Members who have researched and prepared speeches that they cannot deliver, the House is the poorer for that, because it loses the practical knowledge and fresh approach that new Members in particular can bring to debates.
I had been in the House a week when a Conservative Member described me and other new Labour Members as Lobby fodder. New Members do not regard themselves as Lobby fodder. We are here to do a job of work. We are privileged to represent our constituencies. I am particularly privileged as the first Labour Member to represent my constituency. We come from a variety of backgrounds and have a lot to contribute to debates. We want to be active on the Floor as well as in Committee and in our constituencies.
The other reason why I should like the Committee to consider timed speeches is that several hon. Members have mentioned the public perception of the House and the way in which we debate. We must be sensitive to the fact that the public have a different perception of our conduct in the House and of our speeches. My constituents have told me that they perceive—I am being diplomatic—longer speeches of a meandering nature as reinforcing the unfortunate perception that Members of Parliament are merely in love with the sound of their own voices and opinions.
I said that I would be succinct and brief because I wished to raise only one point. I shall therefore end by saying that I do not decry my hon. Friends' ability to make long speeches and to stick to the point, but they must also be concise and succinct. The greatest contribution that can be made through timed speeches is to enable as many hon. Members as possible to participate in debates.

Mr. Ben Bradshaw: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Ms Jones) on being the second person in the debate, which began at 4.45 this afternoon, to take less than 10 minutes to speak. I shall not name the other person because it might be embarrassing.
I welcome the report and I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House for all the hard work that she and her Committee have put into it. I was reassured by her comment that this was only the beginning of a process. I am sure that she is aware of the great well of support, particularly from new Labour Members, for radical change in how Parliament is run. If we are to achieve the modern Britain that we talk about, we need a modern Parliament. My hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase (Dr. Wright) made the strongest case for that in this debate.
When many new Members came here—we were prepared for it—this place struck us as a men's club. Our hours are extraordinary. I do not argue, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Cryer) suggests some of us might, for cutting our hours. We all realise that we are here to put in very long hours; otherwise, we would not have gone for this job. However, we have inherited


our hours from an age when most Members of Parliament were not paid to work here or it was their second, third or fourth job. They came here in the afternoons.
I support my hon. Friends who have made the case for introducing a system of core hours in which we start at 10 or 11 o'clock in the morning and work until 7 o'clock in the evening. That does not mean that we could not have Committees in the evenings or outside those times. Previous speakers have already mentioned the effect that our existing hours have on family life. Many of us have no family life or loved ones within easy reach of the building, but many others do. I urge them to consider the fact that most businesses that operate effectively take into account people's basic human need to see their families. When the hours of the House were set, most of the men who inhabited these seats had few, if any, family responsibilities—that was all done by servants.
The length of speeches has already been mentioned by other hon. Members. Madam Speaker is already on record as expressing her concern that the BBC is thinking of getting rid of "Yesterday in Parliament". Over the past few years, many hon. Members have expressed concern about the decreasing interest, among not just the broadcast media but the printed media, in what happens in this Chamber. That is evidence, if any were needed, that we are, by and large, a turn-off. Most of the 15-minute speeches that I have heard since arriving here on 1 May could easily have been made in five minutes. We could then have fitted in more people. I whole-heartedly support the idea of restricting the length of speeches to 10 minutes. I do not understand why they could not be a little shorter.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Derby, North (Mr. Laxton) on his excellent maiden speech. The fact that he was here to make it reminded me of the problem that I had making mine. The problem is shared by many new Members, who sit through hours and hours of debate, having taken a long time preparing their maiden speech, and are then not called to speak. I heard of one hon. Member to whom that happened five times, so I urge my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House to consider the whole system of maiden speeches. Until a new Member makes a maiden speech, he or she is gagged. If that is not the strict rule, they at least feel gagged, because they cannot contribute to debates in the Chamber.
So far, no one has raised the issue of the dress code in the House. I do not mind wearing a suit every day, but I object to being told that I must do so. Others in the Chamber—please rule me out of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker if I am—have to sit here in diamante, buckled shoes, wearing swords and wigs. They may like that, but we should be aware of the image that we project to the world outside.
My next point is about applause. One of my abiding memories is of my first day in the Chamber for the re-election of Madam Speaker. I was sitting next to my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody). When the Prime Minister entered the Chamber, there was spontaneous applause from the Labour Benches. I shall not easily forget it because I received a sharp elbow in my ribs—I was one of those who were clapping—and it was made clear to me in no uncertain terms that applause was not allowed in the Chamber. Why not? Moments later, the most

extraordinary animal noises were emanating from her mouth. Apparently, that was how we were supposed to express our appreciation. I do not know of any other modern Chamber in the world that does not allow polite applause.
Prayers are fine and I attend when I can, but I have to say as a high Anglican that I have not in years attended a church service where the prayers were as archaic as those we say in this Chamber at 2.30 pm.
My hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike), whom I shall reveal as the other hon. Member who spoke for less than 10 minutes today, talked about the seating. I know that doing so would not be physically easy, but I do not see why we cannot change the Chamber seating into a horseshoe shape. We do not need to move the Benches: Labour Members could all sit at one end, with the Conservatives, the Liberal Democrats and the other minority parties at the other. I know that that would not allow the confrontation across the Dispatch Boxes that we have now, but is that confrontation necessarily a good thing?
If we want to move to a new politics of a more collaborative or inquisitorial nature, why are we so hooked on the system of Front-Bench spokesmen—currently my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House and the shadow Leader of the House, the hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack)—facing each other at a distance of a few feet, often shouting at each other? Even if changing the seating meant that they sat further apart, they could still have a discourse, albeit one that was less confrontational.
My hon. Friend the Member for Burnley also mentioned that there is not room for us all in the Chamber. As a result, we have to stand, or sit in the Gangways, or sit in the Galleries or sit on Benches where we cannot contribute to the debate. I beg my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House to consider changing the seating in that respect as well.
Finally, I want to emphasise a point that my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase made most eloquently. One of the reasons we won such a big majority on 1 May was that the British public were fed up with politics as usual. Politicians, after journalists—none of whom have bothered to stay for this debate—are held in the lowest esteem according to every opinion poll. That has much to do with the "yah-boo" nature of this place and if we do not change that, we will be unable to restore the people's confidence in the political process. The report makes a great start and I hope that we will go much further.

Mr. John Gunnell: First, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I should like to say how delighted I am that your predecessor in the Chair did not call me at a time that would have meant that I spoke before new Members who have been present for longer than I, because I have enjoyed listening to their speeches. They have been extremely helpful to me and, although I cannot say that I have agreed with everything that has been said, they have been imaginative speakers.
I particularly congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Derby, North (Mr. Laxton) on his maiden speech. I, too, was delighted by Derby County's play last Saturday when they appeared at Elland Road. I was not happy when they were 3-0 up, but I was very happy when, in the last


minute, Leeds won the game. Nevertheless, Derby County contributed to the most entertaining game I have seen at Elland Road for a long time.
Turning to the subject of the debate, I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House. About a year ago, I heard her speak at a Charter 88 meeting in the House and many of the ideas that she talked about on that occasion are proposals that she is now seeking to put into practice through the Select Committee. I took particular note of her statement that there should be
some kind of legislative consultation with a flexible range of options.
Although not everything that she said has come to pass, the Select Committee's report has at least been put before the House. As my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase (Dr. Wright) said, we now have a Government who are committed to change. We also have a Leader of the House who knows how that change should be scrutinised, both in Committee and by the House. The report is a positive step and I wish my right hon. Friend every success in bringing about the changes that she envisaged a year ago. I shall comment briefly on them. I have decided to comment only on those matters that have not been done to death in the debate.
On pre-legislative scrutiny, I should say that the time that I have spent in Standing Committees has been pretty futile. I served on the Committee that considered the Bill that became the Railways Act 1993, relating to rail privatisation. That Bill, which was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Derby, North, was very long. Its scrutiny was conducted before our current hours were introduced, but no view expressed by the Opposition received any credence, despite the fact that we were dealing with matters of importance. They were also matters of high political controversy, so that may have been understandable, were it not for the fact that there were many points at which the Minister responsible for the Bill, and for piloting it through Committee, agreed that there was uncertainty about the detail of the way in which the Government were proceeding on certain issues.
As a result of the 1993 Act, jobs in the constituency that I then represented were lost, and a company went out of existence. There had been 130 years of railway manufacturing in Hunslet. That tradition was lost directly as a result of the Bill; that point was raised at the time, but it received scant regard. That was a failure of our system, which I hope that we shall change.
The changes that are proposed for Standing Committees are all-important, and I very much hope that they will all be put into practice.
Further discussion is needed on whether to use departmental Select Committees or to set up a specific Standing Committee to carry out pre-legislative work. The report of the Modernisation Committee is inconsistent about Select Committees and the use of departmental Select Committees. It says, or implies, that a departmental Committee would be overloaded if it involved itself in the draft scrutiny of the Bill.
Although that is arguable, it is inconsistent then to suggest that the same Select Committee might consider the Bill after it has come into effect. If a Select Committee has certain expertise, it is better for that expertise to be put to use before the Bill is further considered and before it becomes law than for it to be used to monitor the effects of the Act.
I acknowledge that we ask a great deal of our departmental Select Committees. There is a case for an ad hoc specific Standing Committee or pre-legislative Committee in which ideas can be explored.
Why is there no reference in the report to civil service back-up? Select Committees are served by Committee Clerks, not civil servants, but that is an issue which should be considered in connection with modernising the House. Traditionally, the legislative branch and the Executive branch of the Government are in the House.
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Cryer) that if there is a system of push-button voting, all members of the Government—the Executive—would find that they had so many demands on their time that it would become the norm for them to push the button instead of turning up and meeting their colleagues. That voting system would isolate the Executive. Under our system, the Executive is drawn from Members of Parliament and must be involved in the normal parliamentary processes. I believe that there is value in members of the Government being physically present to vote.
Why do we not use the civil service during pre-legislative consideration of Bills? I think that the public would support that proposal. We refer to "civil servants" and "public servants", but not to "Government servants". Yet the civil service serves the Government. I believe that there is a case for introducing civil service back-up for Committees scrutinising Bills, particularly before they are sent to Standing Committees.
Two hon. Members have mentioned the Wild Mammals (Hunting with Dogs) Bill. I suggest to the Leader of the House that the Bill should be considered for rollover. I have received more constituency correspondence on that issue than any other—and I think that my experience is common to that of other hon. Members. Many people find it hard to accept the Government's explanation that Parliament does not have time to consider that legislation. I understand the Government's position: I understand the priorities involved when dealing with the other place and I understand the passage of constitutional matters through the House. However, I think that the people are right in failing to understand why Parliament does not have time to consider a measure that enjoys enormous public support.
The reasons cannot be explained away on the basis of the time that Parliament spent in recess. I am sure that, given time, the legislation would pass through the House. Therefore, I believe that the Government should consider the Bill for rollover. In those circumstances, we would have time to debate the legislation fully and to establish a special Select Committee—perhaps comprising Members from this and the other place—to consider the issues involved.
The report lists the issues in order of priority; the second is ministerial accountability. The House is not good with legislative processes, and the Committee is right to use that as a starting point. We are also not good at holding Ministers to account. Last year, the then shadow Leader of the House referred to the format of Prime Minister's Question Time. She suggested not how many times a week Prime Minister's questions should occur, but that we might have a more intelligent Prime Minister's Question Time if many questions were known in advance. Most of us—perhaps because it is the easiest


thing to do or because we do not want to ask closed questions—just put "E" on the questions that we table. I believe that hon. Members' conservatism in tabling questions has put a stop to the idea of conducting Prime Minister's Question Time with advance notice of the questions.
Clearly, there is a place for spontaneous questions, but we seem to be reverting to the pattern as before. Some hon. Members table questions to the Prime Minister on subjects that greatly concern them—my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) certainly does that—but, in general, we follow a pattern that has become traditional in the House. We should consider ways of ensuring that more questions are given serious thought before being answered.
The issue of parliamentary questioning should be raised by the Modernisation Committee. I commend to the Leader of the House the Public Service Select Committee report on ministerial accountability which was issued in 1996. It deals with serious issues that must be studied with great care. There was a difference between the Select Committee and the Government on whether Parliament should be able to demand the resignation of a Minister. Perhaps that question should be revisited.
The way forward for parliamentary accountability that was seen by that Select Committee has largely been accepted in principle, but we have yet to see how it works out, especially with regard to the style of parliamentary questions. We get more answers now than we got previously, but there are still times when it is easy for a Minister who does not wish to answer not to do so. I do not think that there have been any false answers, although the report suggest a procedure for dealing with answers that a Member believes are not correct.
On the issue of holding Ministers and the Executive to account, I hope that the Leader of the House will pay due attention to the work done in the previous Parliament by the Select Committee, which, by and large agreed on its findings. Where a minority view was expressed, it should be considered carefully.
I have spoken for a good deal more than 10 minutes. When the Whip spoke to me, he suggested that I finish within a quarter of an hour. I hope that I have not spoken for quite that long.

Mr. Tom Levitt: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Derby, North (Mr. Laxton) on his maiden speech. He and I both represent Derbyshire constituencies. We fought the 1992 election together, and we were both in local government in Derbyshire, where we overlapped for four years. I am sure that we will have a partnership in the House which lasts much longer than that.
I am one of the newer Members. This week, we have heard some scepticism about the role of newer Members. In the early days, when my name was put forward for membership of the Select Committee on Standards and Privileges, there were some grumbles from Opposition Members about the fact that three new Members were involved. We have heard the same arguments this week about other new Members on Committees.
I like to think that those of us who are new to this place have established ourselves, and that those of us who have served on Select Committees have acquitted ourselves well. I believe that we have demonstrated that on the Standards and Privileges Committee. From the report before us, it seems that members of the Modernisation Committee have done so. Given the opportunity, I am sure that new Members will demonstrate their worth.
Against that background, I shall tell the House a short story. I was summoned by means of a card through the post to attend a meeting of a Standing Committee. I received the card on the Friday, read that it referred to a meeting during the following week and proceeded to do nothing about it at that moment. On the Monday I realised that the Standing Committee clashed with the meeting of the Select Committee of which I was a member. In my ignorance I thought that the Select Committee must come first. I was told, however, that the Standing Committee must come first.
By talking to the Whips, an intricate arrangement was arrived at whereby I would attend the meeting of the Select Committee, in a room that was in the same corridor as the room used by the Standing Committee. I was told that if there was a Division in the Standing Committee, a policeman would shout out at one door that a vote was taking place, another policeman would run down the Committee Corridor and another policeman would knock on the door of the Select Committee, summon me and take me to the of the Standing Committee room so that I might vote.
After two and a half hours in the Select Committee, I had not been called to the Standing Committee, which meant that there had not been a Division. Subsequently, I learnt that the Standing Committee had reported in 20 minutes flat. I do not know to this day what that Committee was discussing. I do not know what was said in that Committee and I do not know what the outcome was. I am not sure about the purpose of that Committee. I obviously went to the right Committee because I knew what was going on in the Select Committee on Standards and Privileges.
That story comes from my ignorance of the system, but I am still not sure what Standing Committees are for. It is clear that they can be all over in 20 minutes. They are not about the detailed inspection of legislation that is the potential of Select Committees. I am much in favour of having pre-legislative Select Committees to examine draft legislation as well as post-legislative Committees. There should be two different bodies of Committees so that Members who consider legislation that finds its way on to the statute book are not involved in considering that legislation in draft form. It is a good idea to have two different groups involved in scrutiny. In that way there would be a greater Back-Bench role.
As some hon. Members have said, the Child Support Agency is an example of legislation that was launched with the best of intentions. A major review took place during the previous Parliament and another review may yet take place. Despite that background, there is still unfairness in the system. There are inefficiencies and contradictions in the way in which the organisation operates. Those shortcomings could have been discovered by more thorough pre-legislative scrutiny, along with more effective and powerful post-legislative scrutiny. If that process had been followed, the system would have


been better for our constituents and the reputation of the agency, and its effectiveness in carrying out the job that we thought we were giving it would have been enhanced.
I receive three or four new CSA cases in my postbag every week, and other hon. Members tell me that they receive more. The majority of those cases stem from legislation that seemed all right at the time, but did not receive proper scrutiny.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Cryer) talked about the usefulness of the Lobby for tapping people on the shoulder, for example. Surely we have new technology for recording votes more efficiently, which is the metallic stripe on the back of our identity cards. I do not know why that stripe cannot be used as a swipe card to register our attendance as we pass through the Lobby.
My constituency is on the straight line between Manchester and Sheffield. That means that I can spend a couple of hours in my office on Monday morning and return by late morning on the Friday. I have the entire Friday afternoon in the constituency while the House is sitting. That seems to be a pretty good arrangement. I appreciate that Members who have more difficult travel arrangements find it impossible to achieve the same balance between work in the House and work in the constituency. I would not like to see the start and end of our working week to change that much.
As one who does not have the opportunity for family life on Tuesdays, Wednesdays and Thursdays while the House is sitting, I am happy to go along with what the Whips ask me to do between Monday and Thursday, but I would rather not have to sit through the night if we can avoid it.
It has been suggested that 10-minute speeches may be too long. The Labour party conference has just agreed that to decide policy on the basis of a series of three-minute speeches is not right either, because it does not allow the scrutiny and advancement of arguments that should take place when policy decisions are made. Therefore, 10 minutes is probably about the right length for speeches in the House, but there should be the opportunity for injury time, and so on.
One of the advantages of being a Member for Derbyshire is that if we have problems about procedure we can always go to my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) for an explanation. That is a useful asset. That is the thought, combined with the one that however good we think we are we can always do better, with which I shall leave the House.

Sir Patrick Cormack: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for High Peak (Mr. Levitt). It has been an interesting debate. I have been thinking a lot about Jopling this evening. I was one of those who were very much in favour of the Jopling report. I urged my right hon. and hon. Friends to accept it and I voted for it. But Thursdays were different before Jopling, and the hon. Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Cryer) was right in much, although not all, of what he said. There is a lesson for us there. In seeking to reform the House, we must be careful that we do not reform the life out of it. That is crucial.
It was a pleasure to hear the maiden speech by the hon. Member for Derby, North (Mr. Laxton). He paid a gracious tribute to his predecessor, Greg Knight, which

was appreciated by Conservative Members. Greg Knight had a fine reputation here and, having spoken in the hon. Gentleman's constituency last week—I properly informed him that I would be so doing—I know that he had a great reputation in his constituency too. I know that the hon. Gentleman will seek to emulate him in that. I cannot wish him a long stay in the House, but I wish him an extremely happy one.
It was also good to hear the hon. Gentleman pay tribute to Phillip Whitehead, whom hon. Members from all parts of the House will remember with affection. He was a distinguished Member and is now a distinguished Member of the European Parliament.
The hon. Gentleman brings to the House a considerable experience of local government, and that was implicit in almost everything that he said. He had an essentially cautious and evolutionary approach, which I find attractive. It has much to commend it. He said that he was particularly concerned about legislation and its quality, and so should we all be. He also said that he had developed some affection for some of the traditions, even some of the more quaint ones, of the House of Commons. That, again, rather endeared him to me.
The hon. Gentleman also said that he thought the reforms to the Order Paper had been sensible, logical and helpful. No one who has spoken in the debate who has referred to the Order Paper—several hon. Members have—has had anything other than praise for it. We are very much in the debt of those Clerks who were particularly responsible for drawing up the new draft Order Papers. It is not customary to talk about the Clerks in this place, but it could not run without them. They give devoted service, many of them over many years, and the way in which they responded with alacrity to the Committee's request was commendable.
Alas, I am no longer a member of the Modernisation Committee, but I was a member throughout its discussion of this report and attended every session. I pay tribute to the President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons, the right hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor), for the exemplary manner in which she chaired our proceedings. Her approach was exceptionally fair and balanced throughout and the report is sensible and sound. I have no hesitation in commending it most warmly to the House.
The report is concerned with the legislative process. Many hon. Members have taken the opportunity, legitimately, to refer to other changes that they would like made. That is fine, but I hope that the Committee will approach each subject with deliberation. I am not saying that it should not consider all the subjects to which hon. Members have referred, but it should do so with care, thoroughness and without time constraints.
There was a time constraint on this report. The right hon. Lady promised the House that the Committee would be established and would report before the end of July. She was anxious to deliver on her promise, and every member of the Committee was anxious to assist her. The report was all the more welcome for coming just before the House rose for the recess. Hon. Members were glad about the changes to the Order Paper, and were also glad that we had done something about the voting system.
I hope that the Committee will consider further matters, particularly the voting system, carefully and in a measured way. Several hon. Members said that they valued the


present voting system, because it enables them to talk to Ministers and others in the Lobby. We would be much the poorer if we went electronic, especially if it cleared the Lobby.
We have heard many interesting speeches. As was to be expected, the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) made a wise and perceptive speech. The House owes him a great deal for the selfless service that he has given in a variety of capacities. Since he ceased to be a Minister of the Crown, he has been a most distinguished Chairman of some key Committees. In his present role, he has massive responsibilities, and I can think of no one in whom I would have greater trust or confidence. He made some interesting comments, and he put it succinctly and perfectly when he said that the Government want to get their business through, but the Opposition need their time.
Hon. Members are realists, or ought to be. It is futile for us to suggest that we will deflect the Government from their legislative intentions. The Government have a massive majority, and unless there is the most extraordinary rebellion by Labour Members, they will get through every piece of legislation that they put before us. That places an extra responsibility on the Government to ensure that legislation is carefully thought out. The Government should be relaxed about the time that they give the House to consider legislation.
I hope that the Government will react positively to the report. The right hon. Member for Dewsbury has a double personality: she is the Chairman of the Committee and the Leader of the House, and in both of those capacities her first duty is to the House of Commons. She is also a senior member of the Executive, and wearing that hat she is as anxious as any of her ministerial colleagues to see that legislation is passed. The proof of the report will be in the right hon. Lady being able to ensure that the first part of her responsibilities at least equals the second, and it would be good if the first part could sometimes triumph over the second.
A number of hon. Members made perceptive comments about legislation. My right hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk (Mr. MacGregor) apologised, because he had to attend a long-standing constituency engagement. He said that better legislation requires less legislation. He also made the important point that if Lords amendments are to be properly considered, the House must give them adequate time.
Now is not the time or the place to discuss the relationship between the two Houses, or to discuss what may happen in the future; but the House of Lords—the other place—currently has a very important legislative role. It scrutinises, and it has great expertise to bring to its scrutiny. Although it cannot throw out any legislation with which the elected House wishes to proceed—which is right—it can say to us, "Think again", and sometimes when it says, "Think again", it is wise for us to think again.
In the days when the Conservative party had a massive majority, after the 1983 general election, the House of Lords performed a signal service, several times seeking to amend legislation that certainly needed to be amended. Sometimes, its amendments were taken on board and its warnings were heeded; sometimes, they were not.

I believe, however, that a system that does not give adequate time for consideration of what is said in the other place is a deficient system.
My right hon. Friend the Member for East Devon (Sir P. Emery) has also given a lifetime of parliamentary service, particularly in regard to procedure. His chairmanship of the Procedure Committee has been immensely distinguished: indeed, the report builds on much of what his Committee has done in the past. He made a powerful point about the disgrace of the fact that large chunks of legislation are not even debated. I have been moved to anger about that in the past. I remember walking out of one guillotine debate, although the motion had been moved by my own Government, because I was so angry about the fact that a large part of a particularly important Bill was receiving no attention. That must not happen in the future; if it does happen, we shall have wasted our time with the report. My right hon. Friend also mentioned the Chairmen's Panel—as did the hon. Member for Stockton, North (Mr. Cook), in a very passionate speech.
Until I was reincarnated on the Front Bench, I was the longest-serving member of the Chairmen's Panel. I agree with everything that the hon. Gentleman said—as, I am sure, would you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It is very important for the Chairmen's Panel to be heeded, and for its caveats to be considered carefully. We should be grateful to both my right hon. Friend and the hon. Gentleman for making that point.
I am sorry that I missed the speeches by the hon. Members for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Helen Jackson) and for Hazel Grove (Mr. Stunell) while I was having a brief snack. They were the only speeches that I did miss. My right hon. Friend the Member for South-West Norfolk (Mrs. Shephard), however, gave me copious notes about what they had said. Both have played a constructive part in the Committee's deliberations, although they have been a little over-hasty in some respects.
The hon. Member for Cannock Chase (Dr. Wright)—who is not present now—made a thoughtful speech. He is my constituency neighbour, and a very good neighbour he is too. He is anxious for Parliament to regain something of its prestige, and some public esteem. He expressed a number of constructive thoughts; I did not agree with all of them, but he made some interesting comments and suggestions.

Mr. Mike Hall: It was a good speech.

Sir Patrick Cormack: It was, and it would repay close study by all hon. Members, including those who are not present this evening.
The hon. Member for Milton Keynes, South-West (Dr. Starkey)—another active member of the Committee—made a particularly good point when she said that the Government must not regard improvements to legislation as defeat, and that, when amendments were being considered, the Government should be open-minded. The Government should consider whether an amendment would indeed improve the Bill involved, and, if it would, they should be prepared to concede and


should not consider that a defeat. I hope that the present Government will heed what the hon. Lady said, and adopt that attitude.

Dr. Starkey: Will the hon. Gentleman also say that it is up to the Opposition not to gloat and take it as a Government defeat when the Government accept their amendments in a constructive spirit?

Sir Patrick Cormack: That is a very good sentiment, but we are all human and we all love a bit of a gloat occasionally. It is the triumph of hope over experience if the hon. Lady thinks that she is going to banish gloating from the Palace of Westminster, but, of course, I take her point.
The hon. Member for Hornchurch is a worthy chip off the old block. Many of us in the House regard his late father with great affection. It was a terrible tragedy when he was killed and a great loss to Parliament. I disagreed with almost everything that he said, but I admired enormously his mastery of our procedures, his persistence and his use of every procedural device; he did it in a way of which Keir Hardie would have been proud. Bob Cryer was a distinguished parliamentarian and the hon. Gentleman seems cast in the same mould. He certainly does not seem to be a man who will be cowed by a Government Whip and I am delighted by that.
I agreed with everything that the hon. Gentleman said about hours, but I gently take issue with what he said about holidays. I am sure that he is as conscientious a constituency Member as his late father was. He never regarded recesses as holidays. He worked jolly hard throughout them and most of us do. That is an important point. In my 27 years in the House, I have never had more than 17 days' consecutive holiday and I do not think that I am unusual in that. It is important that we say that often.
The hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Ms Jones), who is a next-door neighbour of mine in constituency terms, made an admirably lucid and brief speech. She made some good points about timed speeches, but the essence of debate is and must be spontaneity. It is important that there should be opportunity for intervention. If one is always working against a timetable, it is impossible to have interventions. It is a great pity when Members come into the Chamber—she acknowledged this partly, but not sufficiently—read their speeches, sometimes gabbling through them, and are not prepared to give way. They plead in aid the fact that Madam Speaker has imposed a time limit and it stifles debate. I must sit down in a moment so that the Leader of the House gets her 10 minutes, but I add just this.
In the Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons and in all our other deliberations, we must try to bring life back into this Chamber, which should be the cockpit of the nation. I find it infinitely depressing when Members contribute to debates—this does not apply to the hon. Members who have spoken in this debate, almost every one of whom has spoken and come back to his or her place—and then go off and do not return, as happens so often.
I wonder whether we should consider taking a leaf out of the book of the other place, so that Members can put in their names. In doing so, they know that they will be called, but are expected to be here throughout. Apart from leaving to take perhaps an urgent telephone call, to answer

a call of nature or to take the briefest of snacks, they should be in this Chamber because it is absolutely destructive of proper debate if we have merely a series of spasmodic utterances, with hon. Members who have contributed then leaving. We need this Chamber to be full. The Select Committee, which is full of experienced members, should bend its collective mind to find out what it can do to encourage Members to be here more often, to take part in debates more vigorously and to stay to listen to what their colleagues have to say.

Mrs. Ann Taylor: With permission, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I should like to say a few words in reply to the debate. I will not have as much time as the hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack) to deal with every contribution, but that is fine by me because, in many respects, he was replying on behalf of those of us who served on the Committee. As I said earlier, it was a constructive Committee which produced a unanimous report.
The hon. Member for South Staffordshire was right to say that we have not had what he called "spasmodic utterances" during this debate. We have had a good example today of how Parliament can work and how hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber can listen to the contributions of others and make their own points in the context of an overall constructive debate.
My hon. Friend the Member for Derby, North (Mr. Laxton) made an extremely competent maiden speech which I am sure will please his constituents. He showed extremely good knowledge of their problems and the issues that concern them most. He ventured on to the subject of football, which is a somewhat dangerous thing to do if I am in the Chamber. In that respect, all I have in common with him is the fact that in Bolton we, too, have a new stadium. I have not visited his yet and Derby County has not yet visited Bolton. Perhaps we will see each other later in the year when we can talk about the modernisation of Parliament for 90 minutes—or perhaps not.
Today's debate has shown that the whole House basically welcomes the thrust of the recommendations in the Committee's report. Hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber have emphasised different parts of the report or have suggested modifications to certain elements of what we have proposed. Some have suggested ideas that we might wish to take further forward. Basically, almost everybody who has spoken has, in one way or another, supported the ideas in the report.
In many respects, that is not surprising, because we have heard from a mixture of experienced Members and new Members. It is sometimes said that it is only new Members who want to see change in this Chamber. We have seen today that, with one or two exceptions, that is not the case. There are many hon. Members who have spent many years in the House and who do not feel that the best use has always been made of the time they have spent here. [Interruption.] The right hon. Member for East Devon (Sir P. Emery) is showing himself to be a true moderniser by pretending to applaud instead of saying, "Hear, hear." I do not think that we should provoke Mr. Deputy Speaker too much on this occasion.
As the hon. Member for South Staffordshire said, the contribution made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) was wise and


perceptive. He took an overview of the changes that are needed and managed to throw in one or two practical changes which might be achieved quite quickly if we were to take them up. He gave us food for thought in that respect.
The same is true of the right hon. Member for South Norfolk (Mr. MacGregor). As a former Leader of the House, he made a positive contribution to the debate and put the changes that we propose into context. He gave us hope that we could achieve a great deal in the future.
My hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike), whom I have known for many years, is a member of the Committee. He showed his normal common sense in his approach to the debate and his usual honesty. He admitted that, on occasion, he had been party to some of the time-wasting deliberations that have had to take place in the past. After so many years in opposition, we both feel that the weapon of delay never really achieved anything. It might have caused some frustration to Ministers on a few occasions, but it never achieved anything. There was never anything constructive about it. We must try to find ways for everybody to be constructive critics, if that is what is needed. That requires a degree of willingness to listen on the part of the Government.
There will be matters on which there will be no meeting of minds, as the right hon. Member for South-West Norfolk (Mrs. Shephard) mentioned, but on other occasions—I return to debates on the Child Support Agency as an example—we do not have to be confrontational on every issue that comes up. We should not deny the fact that hon. Members on both sides of the House can on occasions agree. We should not pretend that such occasions can never occur and gear all our procedures towards that.
The right hon. Member for East Devon, who has been a member of the Committee as well as having a distinguished record as Chairman of the Procedure Committee, proved that point when he talked of Bills being passed after only a quarter or a third of their contents had been discussed. That was why he was looking for a constructive way of using timetabling, as he had said before.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stockton, North (Mr. Cook) was less happy with some of the changes. Perhaps I can reassure him—not least because his last point, on which I was going to intervene, related to experiments. We are not trying to change Standing Orders in such a way that we never learn anything and lock ourselves into new procedures which may not work well.
My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Helen Jackson), who has also contributed a great deal to the Committee, described the expectation of a changed atmosphere in the House due to more women Members of Parliament. We would all like behaviour to improve in the House, for whatever reason. I thought that the point of order that she raised yesterday about the attitude of hon. Members to the swearing in of a new Member was totally valid. I was very pleased that Madam Speaker reinforced my hon. Friend's point.
The hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Stunell), who is also a member of the Committee—a new member—said that he hoped that he had punched his weight. I can assure him that he did. We found his contributions

extremely useful. He said that he hoped that the Government would deliver the report. I know that he understands that we do not deliver the report. The report and the changes can be brought about only through good will and co-operation on both sides of the House.
My hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase (Dr. Wright), who I understand has had to go back to his constituency, made some telling points, which put the debate into perspective. His contribution was extremely significant. It is important that we realise that, although our proposed changes are part of modernising our overall constitution, it should not be regarded as a threatening process. We should ensure that it is used constructively.
The hon. Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill) told us that he was impetuous when he was young, but that now he had settled down to using the procedures. There may have been times when his Whips thought that he was still a little impetuous, but I shall leave him to sort that out with them.
My hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, South-West (Dr. Starkey), who has also contributed to the Committee's work, brought out the necessary analysis. We must lay down the principles and get them right, but we need to get the practicalities right as well. It has been useful having new members of the Committee who have understood so quickly how Parliament works but not lost their enthusiasm for change. I hope that that helps to keep us on our toes.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Cryer), who, as the hon. Member for South Staffordshire said, is following in his father's footsteps to a certain extent—I must admit that I did not always agree with his father on procedural matters either—made some valuable points about timetabling, the changes that have already happened and what we should do now to ensure that any future change is practical. I agree with him—so did the Committee—about using voting time to buttonhole and lobby Ministers. That is one of the things that we hope we do not have to lose.
My hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Ms Jones) referred to shorter speeches. We should consider the basic point of flexibility. Indeed, we might be able to take up the point made by the hon. Member for South Staffordshire about what happens in the other place, which was endorsed by my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr. Bradshaw).
My hon. Friend the Member for Morley and Rothwell (Mr. Gunnell), who is a near neighbour of mine, made some interesting points. I cannot guarantee that we are even thinking of rolling over the Wild Mammals (Hunting with Dogs) Bill, although I know that that will disappoint him. The point that he made about civil service support for Select Committees in appropriate circumstances is one which we must consider.
My hon. Friend the Member for High Peak (Mr. Levitt) has had experience of a Select Committee, and he reminded me that we need to consider the names of the Committees, because that small practical step might help the House.
I am grateful for the approach that all hon. Members who have spoken have taken, and so is the Modernisation Committee. I thank everyone who has been involved in its work. That work is a process, not an event, and it will continue.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House approves the First Report of the Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons: The Legislative Process (HC 190).

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
That, at the sitting on Monday 17th November, the Speaker shall not later than Ten o'clock put the Questions necessary to dispose of proceedings on the motion on Standards and Privileges in the name of Mrs. Ann Taylor and such Questions shall include the Question on any amendment which has been selected and which may then be moved.—[Mr. Jamieson.]

Big Brothers and Big Sisters

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Jamieson.]

10 pm

Mr. Martin Linton: I wish to thank Madam Speaker for selecting this subject for the Adjournment debate tonight. The subject is described in broad terms on the Order Paper as "Government support for young people from underprivileged families", but my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will be aware that I wish to focus on one organisation that supports young people from underprivileged families. It does not yet exist in this country, but is one of the biggest charities in north America, where it has become famous for one specific service—the provision of mentors for children from one-parent families.
The organisation is called Big Brothers and Big Sisters. It has been going for 96 years in the United States of America and for 84 years in Canada. It is the Canadian organisation that has franchised its former national director to try to repeat its success in this country. The organisation has a base in my constituency and I am proud to act as its big brother on this occasion.
The organisation has already won a grant from the national lottery to help it start up and has attracted big donations from the business world. However, it knows that it is in the nature of its business that it cannot get anywhere without the active support of the Government, starting with the Department of Health. I am glad that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary, who has responsibility for family policy, will reply tonight. His Department is considering an application from Big Brothers and Big Sisters for a grant under section 64. I mention that only to make it clear that it is not the purpose of this Adjournment debate to lobby him about the grant, which must be decided on the same criteria as every other application. I am sure that it is not right for a Member of Parliament to try to influence the allocation of grants. My purpose is to draw attention to the work of Big Brothers and Big Sisters, which I am sure my hon. Friend will find fits in well with his approach to family policy. I also wish to ask his Department, and other Departments, to give every encouragement to the organisation.
When it is up and running, Big Brothers and Big Sisters will be able to provide mentors for children mainly, but not only, from single-parent families who approach it. The mentors will be expected to spend about five hours a week, on average, with their little brothers and sisters, but not to spend any money on them—just time.
A number of mentoring organisations already exist in this country. What is new about Big Brothers and Big Sisters is the scale of the operation. In the United States, it has had nearly 1 million volunteers and it operates through 800 affiliated agencies. When it launches in this country, it hopes to grow rapidly. The key to success is to have a sufficiently large reservoir of volunteers to provide ideal matches between big and little brothers and sisters, and to achieve economies of scale. To do that, it will need to reach a critical mass that will provide it with the advantages of scale so that it can operate cost effectively.
Although the mentors will be volunteers, the organisation's franchise agreement requires it to employ professionally qualified and experienced personnel as local agents. It will not make any matches until and unless it has sufficient funds to do so.
We will also need a sophisticated system of screening volunteers. In the United States and Canada, there is a centralised screening system linked to police and other official records. They carry out their own local screening and home visits to all potential volunteers to create a triple lock of security. I am sure that I do not need to spell out why this is such a sensitive issue—suffice it to say that Big Brothers and Big Sisters is very aware of the importance of getting it right. Big Brothers and Big Sisters has enlisted the support of a large computer company which is willing to provide software for a screening system. It has been in touch with the Home Office, as I have, who have been helpful. We will meet the Home Office at an official level to discuss this matter.
The effectiveness of mentoring has been well demonstrated in the United States. A study by an independent research organisation, carried out at a cost of $2 million, compared 500 children placed with a big brother or a sister with 500 who were not. It showed that those placed with a mentor were 27 per cent. less likely to have used alcohol, one third less likely to have shown aggression, 46 per cent. less likely to have begun using drugs and 57 per cent. less likely to have played truant. They were more confident in their school performance and achieved better relations with their own families.
The parents who want big brothers and sisters are not necessarily underprivileged—not in an economic sense, as the title of the debate implies. They include families where the husband is absent for work reasons—including oil workers or service men. The organisation works on the premise that a parent absent for whatever reason presents problems for a child and the parent still at home. It is described as the lack of a suitable role model, but so many different functions are performed by parents and older brothers and sisters within a family, it is often difficult to predict what effect the lack of one of them will have on the children.
As an organisation, Big Brothers and Big Sisters has gone to great lengths to avoid patronising children and single parents. The image that it projects is one not of good works or charity, but of friendship and self-help. Although many of the children are from low-income families, it does not talk much about poverty. The organisation does not raise money by flag days—more likely, it raises money by Hollywood black tie events, as much of its support comes from some of the biggest names in Hollywood. President Clinton is the organisation's patron, and Hillary Clinton is its chairwoman. The organisation is required by its constitution to be totally non-religious and non-political.
Big Brothers and Big Sisters of Britain will not be a replica of the United States organisation. It is inspired by the Canadian example, but it intends to use the expertise and professionalism gained in 96 years in the United States to create a organisation in this country that is large enough to make an impact not just at a local level, but a national one.
An organisation such as Big Brothers and Big Sisters could play an important part in realising the Government's family policy in helping single parents, and

in our youth justice policy. Many young offenders come from one-parent households and it is precisely the lack of role models and encouragement—an adult with whom one can talk things over—that is often the cause of young offending.
Once a young person commits an offence, he meets other young offenders and, in the absence of any alternative, those offenders become role models. Mentoring has a simple solution to the problem—give the young offenders role models who are not themselves offenders. This tackles the problem of youth crime at its very root, before it happens.
The idea of mentoring is as old as the hills. The word "mentor" comes from Greek mythology—it was the man who was a true friend to the child of Odysseus when he was away on his Odyssey. But it has equal relevance in the modern world—one could argue more relevance. Parents spend more and more time working, and sometimes more and more time watching television. The divorce rate is climbing, and fewer and fewer parents are staying at home with their children.
Mentoring provides a way of reconciling the conditions of modern life with what we all know about the importance of the family in a child's development. It depends on the dedication and selflessness of volunteers and will happen on the scale that we need only if we have a modern, cost-effective organisation such as Big Brothers and Big Sisters. I hope that my hon. Friend will tell us that the Government will give that organisation and others like it all the help that they can.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Paul Boateng): The House owes my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Mr. Linton) a debt of gratitude for raising this important issue: the future of our young people and the need to ensure that those who are underprivileged, for whatever reason, get the best possible start in life. We must mobilise the whole community to ensure that they do.
Young people are our future and we cannot afford to have them neglected. The Government put a premium on our youth. We recognise the role of voluntary organisations in partnership with the Government, both nationally and locally, in ensuring that young people get the best possible start.
My hon. Friend has drawn on his considerable experience in addressing the issue and mentioned the contribution of Big Brothers and Big Sisters, which has developed, through befriending and mentoring in the United States and Canada, what has proved to be a very effective model of harnessing and mobilising community resources in support of the young. The Government very much welcome the fact that my hon. Friend has drawn its success to the attention of the House. We believe that it has a role to play in advancing our national agenda on the matter.
Young people thrive best when raised by loving parents living in stable relationships. Indeed, when parents are together and have an effective partnership, they are most likely to be able to provide for young people a context in which it is possible for them to grow, thrive and prosper. We must recognise that for a variety of reasons it is not always possible for that to be the case. My hon. Friend, in his excellent speech, gave several examples of why that


may be. He is right to point out that a child is not necessarily underprivileged simply through the lack of wealth or the absence of material benefits. A young person may be underprivileged as a result of the absence of a father out working anti-social hours, or the absence of a father from the domestic scene altogether.
Young men benefit especially from a male role model. Some of the worst examples of bad and anti-social behaviour by young people arise when they have been brought up without a stable and responsible male role model. We, as men, have a responsibility to be there for our children. We have an especial responsibility to be there for our sons. We would all want, as men, to be responsible fathers.
Where, for whatever reason, a stable and responsible figure is not present in a young person's life, there is certainly a role for mentoring and befriending projects such as those outlined by my hon. Friend and provided by Big Brothers and Big Sisters.
The organisation does not work solely with young men, but it has found, in developing its role in the United States and Canada, that it is young men to whom it has to devote most attention. All too often, it is the contribution of young men to anti-social behaviour that has to be addressed. In the United States, Big Brothers and Big Sisters and other such schemes have been subject to rigorous evaluation that has shown that educational outcomes are much better when such organisations are involved.
Mentoring and befriending organisations have an important role to play in the project that the Prime Minister has got under way with the establishment of a unit in No. 10 to tackle social exclusion. That is why we give this organisation a particularly warm welcome for its potential to contribute to the battle against social exclusion. Of course, we must recognise that if social exclusion is to be effectively addressed, it will require more than simple mentoring and befriending. As a society, we must tackle a range of issues, not least the inequalities that bedevil society. We must ensure that we are effectively moving our citizens from dependence and being without work into being self-sufficient and self-supporting, with all the self-respect that comes from getting back into the world of work.
It is important that we recognise that the battle against poverty, which is contained in the move towards the creation of jobs and training opportunities, is part of the project, as is the need to address inequalities in housing and education. In all those areas, there is an important role for voluntary effort. There is a need to ensure that the whole community is mobilised around the project. It is important to recognise across the Government the need to ensure that housing, education, employment and health services work effectively together. That has to be mirrored by partnerships between local authorities and the voluntary sector, and between health and local authorities, all focused on delivering to families and children and recognising the essential role of families and family life in building a nation.
At our party conference in Brighton this year, the Prime Minister said:
we cannot say we want a strong community and secure society when we ignore its very foundation: family life.
Mentoring and befriending have a role to play in that contribution to building strong, successful families. We recognise that and are determined to ensure that

mentoring and befriending play their proper part as we develop and take forward a programme of work designed to support and enhance family life and to combat social exclusion.
My hon. Friend the Member for Battersea rightly drew attention to the importance to Big Brothers and Big Sisters of the voluntary effort of citizens drawn to offer their services out of a desire to improve and enhance their community. He rightly drew attention to the importance of ensuring that those who volunteer do so out of the best of motives and have no ulterior motive. It is a sad reflection on the times in which we live that it is necessary, particularly in relation to children, to take the utmost care to ensure that those who volunteer to make such a contribution do so because they genuinely care about children, not because they want to abuse or exploit them in some way.

Mr. Linton: Will my hon. Friend assure the House that the Department of Health will work closely with the Home Office on screening, as envisaged in the Police Act 1964? The resources will then be found to enable organisations such as Big Brothers and Big Sisters to undertake the enormous job of screening the many thousands—potentially eventually tens or hundreds of thousands—of volunteers. They must be vigorously screened, not only through police records but through all available records, before such organisations can confidently use them for mentoring much younger children.

Mr. Boateng: We are working closely with the Home Office and other interested agencies to ensure that we develop a framework of appropriate protocols and legislation to put in place the necessary safeguards to ensure that young children's interests and welfare are protected. I am delighted to learn that Big Brothers and Big Sisters will seek advice and assistance from the Home Office in that regard.
When encouraging mentoring and befriending, we must ensure that organisations such as Big Brothers and Big Sisters which, through voluntary effort, have the potential to do much good, gain access to the pool of talent, expertise and wisdom that exists among our fellow citizens who are looking for ways to help. We are lucky to live in a time when people, once again, have discovered the will to care. As a result of the tragic events in the life of our nation in recent weeks and months surrounding the death of Diana, Princess of Wales, we have seen a great upsurge in the spirit of caring, concern and commitment to the well being of others. This is therefore a propitious time for an organisation such as Big Brothers and Big Sisters to begin its activities in this country.
Of course, the organisation is by no means alone: already we have throughout the country excellent examples of the tradition of volunteering in support of children and young people. One thinks of Home-Start, which mobilises the commitment and experience of successful older parents who are prepared to range themselves alongside others who, for one reason or another, feel in need of support in parenting.
These are excellent organisations doing good work, but there are other individuals and groups working through other organisations in support of young people. We all know those individuals in our constituencies and it is


always good, as Members of Parliament, to be able to do what we can to support them in their work. Big Brothers and Big Sisters will provide yet another opportunity for people to give of their time and energy at a time in our nation's history when their work is much needed.
Studies suggest that mentoring, of itself, is not to be seen as a substitute for quality social services, education and employment programmes. That is why we as a Government see it as but one strand of an overall and overarching programme across Government designed to support and sustain children and young people. It is, nevertheless, an important part and, in welcoming my hon. Friend's initiation of tonight's debate, let me tell him that I am happy to be able to announce that the Department of Health is to second a member of staff to Big Brothers and Big Sisters and contribute up to £10,000 towards that person's salary to show our support for the work of Big Brothers and Big Sisters and to ensure that best practice is followed in the screening process my hon. Friend mentioned.
We also believe that it is vital that we learn from Big Brothers and Big Sisters to see how best the experience gained in the United States and Canada can be utilised, not only through that organisation's operation in this country, but throughout the voluntary sector. Big Brothers

and Big Sisters has considerable experience not only of mobilising voluntary activity in the community, but of gaining access to funding and to expertise that would be of value to the voluntary sector generally.
Volunteering and the voluntary sector play an important part in the development of successful community-led initiatives. They are the cement of thriving civic societies. They enable us to make the early interventions in the life of children and young people that are the most cost-effective way of ensuring that they go on to prosper, grow and overcome the risks and problems that all too often threaten some of our most underprivileged young people in hard-pressed communities. We believe that that will pay huge dividends in the struggle to create safe and secure communities and that it will bolster up that which we are seeking to achieve in terms of the criminal justice system. We believe that it will make our families strong so that they may be successful and provide the building blocks of a strong and successful nation as we move into the new millennium.
The House owes my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea a debt of gratitude for raising this issue. We will work to carry forward the interests of children and young people.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-nine minutes past Ten o'clock.